Research eu. Special issue, November 2009.
Date: 2010-06-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: research, research and development, research project, serial publication

 European Commission

special issue –  November 2009

the magazine of the european research area

I

S
S
N
1
8
3
0
-
7
9
8
1

Where 
are we now? 

European research

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   1
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   1

08/10/09   17:21
08/10/09   17:21

 
 research*eu is the European Union’s research magazine, written by independent professional journalists, 
which aims to broaden the democratic debate between science and society. It presents and analyses projects, 
results and initiatives through which women and men are making a contribution towards reinforcing 
and uniting scientiﬁ c and technological excellence in Europe. Published in English, French, German and Spanish 
with ten issues per year, research*eu is edited by the Communication Unit of the European Commission’s 
Directorate-General for Research.

The great integration

Where is European research headed? In 2000, when they decided to create a ‘European 
Research Area’ (ERA) that would be to knowledge what the single market is to the 
economy, European Union leaders were choosing to tackle head-on one of Europe’s chief 
weaknesses, namely its fragmented research programmes and initiatives. Less than 
10 years later, we take stock of progress to date and of how much remains to be done!

With research investment in Europe at a standstill, is Europe still a force to be reckoned 
with on the world science scene? This is a fair question. The answer is that European 
strategy is crammed with innovations. The ERA promises to deliver integration and 
cooperation at every level: not only among researchers and industrialists but also among 
administrators and decision-makers, programmes and policies. In the case of the Seventh Framework Programme, 
this extends well beyond Europe’s borders. For instance, the Asian countries are interested in adopting the concept. 
And what if (there’s no harm in dreaming) the European Research Area were to herald a full-scale World Research 
Area? Only the future will tell. For the time being, the ERA represents a major stride towards the introduction of 
a real European research policy from which we expect to reap the benefits. The future is being written as we speak.

Michel Claessens
 Editor in chief

The opinions expressed in this editorial and in the articles in this
issue do not necessarily represent the views of the European Commission.

l
a
i
r
o
t
i
d
e

research*eu

Editor in chief
Michel Claessens

Language version proofreaders
Maria-Antonia Jimenez-Nevado (ES), 
Gerard Bradley (EN), Régine Prunzel (DE)

General coordination
Jean-Pierre Geets, Charlotte Lemaitre

Editorial coordination 
Jean-Pierre Geets

Editorial adviser 
Didier Buysse

Journalists
Audrey Binet, Didier Buysse, 
Kirstine De Caritat, Frédéric Dubois, 
Sandrine Dewez, Elisabeth Jeffries, 
Marie-Françoise Lefèvre, Christine Rugemer, 
Yves Sciama, Mikhaïl Stein, Julie Van Rossom

Translations
Andrea Broom (EN), Martin Clissold (EN), 
Silvia Ebert (DE), Michael Lomax (EN), 
Consuelo Manzano (ES) 

Graphic design
Gérald Alary (project manager), 
François Xavier Pihen (layout), 
Christopher Moloughney (production 
coordination and follow-up), 
Daniel Wautier (proofreading FR), 
Richard Jones (proofreading EN), 
Sebastian Petrich (proofreading DE), 
D. A. Morrell (proofreading ES)

Illustration search  
Christine Rugemer 

Web version 
Charlotte Lemaitre

Printing 
Gilly Bietlot (BE)

General production
PubliResearch

 Request for subscription to the printed version of research*eu

Research*eu is a free magazine. To subscribe, change the mailing address, modify the terms of your subscription 
or cancel, the fastest and most reliable way is to visit the website: http://ec.europa.eu/research/research-eu 
You can also order previous issues at no charge.

You can subscribe to the magazine free of charge
through the website
 http://ec.europa.eu/research/research-eu

Language version(s) desired:

  French 
  German 

  English
  Spanish

This edition has been printed 
in 126 000 copies.
All editions of research*eu are available 
online on the EC’s Research website.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/research-eu

You can also fill in this coupon in block
capitals and return it to the following address:
 research*eu
ML DG1201
Boîte postale 2201
L-1022 Luxembourg

Name :   ...............................................................................................................................................................

Organisation : .......................................................................................................................................

Address : .........................................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................................................

 Postcode : ............................................   Town/city :  .............................................................

 Country :  ........................................................................................................................................................

 If you wish to receive multiple copies of the magazine 
in the same language, please send us your request, 
with your full address and a short note outlining 
your reasons.

Editor in chief
Michel Claessens
Tel.: +32 2 295 99 71
Fax: +32 2 295 82 20
E-mail: research-eu@ec.europa.eu

• by e-mail  
research-eu@ec.europa.eu
• by fax (+32 2 295 82 20)

 To obtain one or more copies of back issues, please 
contact us by e-mail or by fax.

© European Communities, 2009
Reproduction permitted, provided 
the source is acknowledged. 

Neither the European Commission nor any 
person acting on behalf of the Commission 
is responsible for the use that may be made 
of the information contained in this 
publication or any errors that may remain 
in the texts, despite the care taken 
in preparing them.

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   2
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   2

08/10/09   17:21
08/10/09   17:21

 
 
 
  4   Europe at a crossroads

  EUROSTARS

  INTERVIEW

 20  The treasure seekers

  6  “There is only strength through unity”

José-Manuel Silva Rodriguez, Director-
General of DG Research, sets out the 
progress made by the European Research 
Area and the challenges that remain.

  INTERNATIONAL

  8  A key role but persistent weaknesses

The EU remains a leading scientific power 
but is continuing to lose ground. The reason 
is the lack of private financing of research, 
especially in the high technologies.  

  RESULTS

 10  Did you say Lisbon?

The EU is far from having met its goal of 
investing 3 % of GDP in research. Yet the 
Lisbon strategy remains more pertinent 
than ever in meeting the challenges 
of the 21st century.  

  SPACE

 12  Space research, a condensed ERA 

The partnership between the EU and ESA, 
or building the European Research Area in 
the field of space.

 14   Draw me the ERA!

  HISTORY

 16  European research, 

  slow but steady progress

To appreciate just how much of a milestone 
the ‘European Research Area’ concept 
represented when it was launched 10 years 
ago, it needs to be seen as the culmination 
of a disparate but inexorable long-term 
aspiration that first emerged several 
decades ago.

  ORGANISATION

 18  ERA at a glance

Explaining the dynamics of the European 
Research Area… in pictures.

A new grant-based facility for SMEs 
encourages the pearls of innovation 
in Europe. 

  JOINT PROGRAMMING

 22  Alzheimer’s, a pilot initiative

The fight against Alzheimer’s disease is 
becoming a priority for Member States and 
associations coordinating their efforts 
thanks to joint programming.

 24   Making a success 
of integration

  ACADEMIC RESEARCH 

 26  Universities in question(s)

The new autonomy European universities 
are gaining under the impetus of the EU 
should mainstream them into the 
knowledge economy.

  NETWORKING THE ERA 

 28  More effective together

Working together. A wide-angle view 
of European initiatives in the field of 
scientific collaboration.

  INFRASTRUCTURES

 30  Sanctuaries of research

With Europe’s priority infrastructures now 
defined, it is time to implement these 
giant projects.

  MOBILITY

 32  The researcher’s backpack

A researcher must be mobile in order to be 
competitive, an obligation which must be 
combined with a career plan, social rights 
and family life.

  KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

 34  From the lab to industry

Outline of the complex task awaiting Europe 
as regards knowledge transfer and the 
inextricable question of intellectual property.  

CONTENTS

  INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

 36  Where are the frontiers of research?
The ERA’s international dimension is 
expressed through alliances and new 
science and technology cooperation 
strategies.

 38   Horizon 2020

  INTERVIEW

 40  Shaping the European research 

  of tomorrow

Anneli Pauli, Deputy Director-General 
of DG Research, explains the main principles 
guiding forward-looking activities promoted 
by Europe.

  ENVIRONMENT

 42  A package of measures

The EU has just adopted the following 
targets for 2020: a 20 % reduction in 
greenhouse gases, a 20 % share of 
renewable energy and 10 % of biofuels. 
Can this be achieved? Is it enough?

  AGRICULTURE

 44  Rethinking agricultural research 

Climate, energy and environment: three 
key issues for Europe’s agriculture. A brief 
look at future trends in the sector.

  HEALTH

 46  Putting innovation into practice

Health is one of the major themes 
supported by Europe, for both putting 
innovation into practice and developing 
a network of excellence.

  IMAGE OF SCIENCE 

 48  Of mice and men

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

3

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   3
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   3

08/10/09   17:21
08/10/09   17:21

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
R
F
S
E
/
C
A
L
S
y
s
e
t
r
u
o
C
©

The Japanese researcher 
Susumu Yamamoto working 
at the Stanford synchrotron 
laboratory to study surface 
chemical reactions. 

A
S
E
©

n
o
i
s
s
i

m
m
o
C
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E
©

4 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   4
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   4

08/10/09   17:21
08/10/09   17:21

 
 
 
 
 
Europe at a crossroads

“Our international partners are attracted to Europe as a model of regional 
integration, but they are faced with a multitude of governmental actors and 
research priorities when they want to engage in concrete cooperation. 
The aim of our strategic framework is to engage with Member States to 
transform Europe’s research labyrinth into a  European Research Area open 
to the world, attracting the best brains and contributing to address global 
challenges”. These are the words, spoken in September 2008, of European 
Research Commissioner Janez Potočnik. They sum up perfectly Europe’s 
present position: despite its advantages that are the envy of many all over 
the world, it is finding it hard to discover its place in a globalised research area 
that is more multipolar than ever.  
China and India are becoming genuine R&D heavyweights, and the United States 
and Japan dominate dynamic sectors, while Europe is losing ground, hindered 
by its fragmented past. The famous 3 % of European GDP to be invested in R&D, 

so central to the Lisbon strategy and vital for the creation of a ‘knowledge-based 
economy’, is still a long way off, mainly due to private sector shortcomings. 
Was this a fantasy? Does it mean efforts to build a European Research Area (ERA) 
have stalled? It is certainly too soon to say. Whatever the case, these mixed 
results should not cause us to forget the successes already achieved by the ERA, 
especially in the field of space research.    

n
o
i
s
s
i

m
m
o
C
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E
©

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   5
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   5

08/10/09   17:21
08/10/09   17:21

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

5

 
 
 
INTERVIEW

It is now nearly 10 years since the European 
Research Area was launched. What progress has 
been made? And what remains to be done in 
building a Europe-wide research system that 
is coherent and complementary? José-Manuel Silva 
Rodriguez, head of the DG Research at 
the European Commission, explains. 

“There is only strength  

Few people have heard of the European 
Research Area (ERA). Could you explain what 
the ERA is and describe the benefits it brings 
for the man in the street? 

The ERA was designed for the hundreds of 
thousands of men and women who dedicate 
their working lives to science and technologi-
cal development in Europe. It is thanks to them 
that human knowledge is progressing, that 
European companies are innovating, that our 
quality of life is improving and that Europe is 
establishing itself as a major knowledge centre 
at global level. 

The ERA aims to facilitate their work, to ena-
ble them to practice their profession under the 
best conditions and thereby permit maximum 
progress in research in Europe. How? Above 
all, by freeing researchers from the limits that 
national borders impose on their work and on 
their creativity. Wherever they are in Europe, 
scientists must be able to cooperate with their 
peers without obstacles, use the best research 
equipment and have access to all the knowl-
edge available on the continent. They must also 
be able to work in the European country where 
their skills will be put to optimal use and to 
lend added value to their work by cooperating 
with any scientific institution or company able 
to exploit their results with a view to further 
progress  in  knowledge  and  innovation  in 
Europe. 

The ERA therefore encompasses a full range 
of research activities, programmes and policy 
initiatives designed with a transnational per-
spective in Europe in order to offer our scien-
tists a laboratory of continental dimensions. 
Major steps have been taken to realise this con-
cept, but it is far from complete. Researchers 
still come up against too many national barri-
ers. We must therefore continue to progress on 
the three fronts that constitute the ERA: crea-
tion of a ‘single market’ for research and tech-
nology;  coordination  of  national  research 
activities, programmes and policies; and the 
development, where justified, of initiatives and 
instruments designed from the outset to func-
tion at European level, such as the EU frame-
work programme for research. 

How does European research rank when 
compared with its international competitors? 

Very highly! Europe has research centres and 
universities that are recognised worldwide, excel-
lent quality researchers, reference infrastructures 
and an exceptional knowledge capital.  

The problem is that this position is under 
threat. As a proportion of its national wealth, 
or GDP, the United States invests much more 
in research than Europe does. Other major 
world regions, such as Asia, are today becom-
ing knowledge centres and in some fields are 
already as attractive as the EU. Of course I am 

thinking of China, but also India and Brazil. 
Research in these countries is admittedly not 
yet completely comparable to what is being 
done in Europe and the United States, as there 
are fewer fundamental discoveries and more 
incremental development. But these countries 
possess  immense  human  potential  and  an 
extraordinary dynamism. Their strength, like 
that  of  the  United  States,  is  to  offer  a  vast 
research area on a scale that is incomparable 
to that of any one European country alone. 
That is why the only way to maintain and even 
improve the position of European research at 
world level is to develop the ERA. 

Is the economic crisis jeopardising progress 

by the ERA? 

There was a danger. When the crisis broke 
there could have been a great risk for the EU 
countries to give in to the temptations of pro-
tectionism, including in the research field that 
is,  after  all,  what  is  most  precious  to  each 
country. Fortunately this pitfall was avoided. 
In December 2008, when the crisis was at its 
peak,  the  27  EU  countries  adopted  unani-
mously,  with  the  Commission,  a  ‘vision’ 
designed to speed up development of the ERA. 
In budgetary terms, initial indications are that 
nearly all the European countries understood 
the importance of supporting research as a 
means of working their way out of the crisis. 

6 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   6
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   6

08/10/09   17:21
08/10/09   17:21

INTERVIEW

h  through unity”

n
o
i
s
s
i

m
m
o
C
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E
©

Most of them therefore maintained the budg-
ets allocated to R&D.  

The situation is more difficult for companies, 
especially  small  businesses  active  in  R&D, 
because they are much affected by the credit 
crisis. To help them, the Commission, through 
the European Investment Bank, increased the 
sums allocated to loans to fund research and 
innovation. We set up three major partnerships 
with industry to support R&D in those sectors 
hardest hit by the crisis: the motor industry, 
construction and manufacturing technologies. 

In 2010, the ERA will be celebrating its 10th 
anniversary. What has it accomplished to date? 
And what are the major challenges that await it? 

When Commissioner Busquin launched the 
objective to create the ERA in 2000, we were 
nowhere. It seemed natural for research to be 
essentially programmed and carried out in 
almost sealed national compartments. Over the 
past decade we have witnessed a genuine rev-
olution in thinking. All European governments 
have understood that when it comes to research 
there is only strength through unity. For exam-
ple, we established a Charter and Code of Con-
duct to which hundreds of European institutions 
have signed up. The 27 Member States agreed 
on the priority research infrastructures to be 
built in Europe. Today we envisage creating 
vast transnational programmes to meet the 

major  challenges  of  contemporary  society. 
These programmes will be implemented with 
the research budgets of the Member States in 
addition to the EU framework programme. 

But what remains to be done is also consid-
erable. It is to move from the theory, from good 
intentions, to practice: to apply fully and con-
cretely the principles of the charter and code 
for researchers; to obtain the budgets needed 
to launch the building of priority infrastructures 
and, in the near future, joint programmes. The 
road ahead is long and we must move quickly 
if we are to remain competitive. 

There is also another challenge that must be 
highlighted. The ERA must not be regarded as 
an area isolated from the rest of the world. On 
the contrary, European research draws suste-
nance from intense exchanges and interaction 
with our foreign partners. The ERA must help 
European researchers to work together with 
the world’s best scientists. To date, each coun-
try has developed its international scientific 
cooperation activities in almost perfect isola-
tion. Each national ministry, even each research 
centre director or university rector, travels to 
China  or  the  United  States  in  almost  total 
ignorance of what his peers in the other EU 
countries may have discussed with the same 
interlocutors the day, week or month before. 
This  fragmentation  is  extremely  damaging 
for  the global impact of European research. 

17 July 2009. José Manuel Silva Rodríguez, 
Director-General of DG Research (on the right) 
and Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Director-General of CERN, 
sign a memorandum of agreement designed 
to strengthen the long existing partnership 
between these two organisations.  

Our major partners do not find themselves 
dealing with a major scientific power but with 
a succession of divided small or medium-sized 
countries. That is why the Commission last year 
proposed to launch a genuine European stra-
tegy for scientific and technological cooperation 
with the rest of the world, a strategy to enable 
all the EU countries to express themselves 
coherently at world level and to promote their 
common  interests.  All  the  Member  States 
agreed to go down this road and have set to 
work with the Commission. It is a long-term job 
but, in my mind, by so doing we are preparing 
for major progress for European research and 
its global reach.   

Interview by research*eu

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

7

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   7
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   7

08/10/09   17:21
08/10/09   17:21

 
 
 
IINNNNTTETETETETTETETEEEERRNRRNRNRNNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNNNNNNR ATATATATATATATATATAAAAATATAAATTIIOONAAAALLLLLL

The 2008 Commission report ‘A more 
research-intensive and integrated 
European Research Area’ provides 
a genuine X-ray of the European 
Research Area (ERA). Packed full 
of graphs and figures, its 169 pages 
permit a comparison of the ERA’s 
performances with those of its 
principal competitors. It also 
provides food for thought on its 
evident weaknesses and how 
to correct them.   

but  

Let us start with a snapshot. What was 

the ERA’s ranking in the world in 2006, 
the date of the most recent statistics? 
A lead ranking: first for the number 
of scientific publications and second (behind 
the United States) for the number of patents 
registered and money invested in R&D. Cause 
for celebration? Not at all. European publica-
tions may be more numerous, but they are not 
the most cited, and that is the criterion that tra-
ditionally measures the true impact of scientific 
research. Of the 10% most cited publications, 
a clear majority are US publications. The reason 
for this is the lack of thematic specialisation on 
the part of European research. While the EU 
puts in a respectable performance in all fields, 
it is dominant in none of the most dynamic 
sectors. The United States dominates in the bio-
medical  field  and  Japan  is  the  undisputed 
leader in material sciences; the EU does a little 
of everything.  

It is these NBIC (Nanotechnologies, Biotech-
nologies, Information and communication tech-
nologies, Cognitive science) that are crucial for 
the future of the knowledge economy. In these 
fields, applications are close to, indeed often 
inextricable  from,  the  production  of  new 
knowledge. Yet the European private sector 
invests much less in R&D than its Asian or 
American counterparts. In the United States, 
and even more so in Japan, China and South 
Korea, private sector research accounts for 

8 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

more than 64 % of the total, compared with 
55 % in the EU.    

Growing Asian strength
From photography to cinema, a study of the 
trends over the past decade delivers a clear 
message. Europe’s position has followed a reso-
lutely downward trajectory, whether in terms of 
the number of publications and patents or the 
intensity of the R&D effort – the latter measured 
in terms of money invested in R&D by a coun-
try in relation to the wealth produced, a ratio 
considered as most representative of the dyna-
mism of a research system.  

There is some meagre consolation to find 
that  this  is  also  true  of  the  United  States, 
although to a lesser degree. The Old World and 
the New are both facing growing competition 
from Asia. Since 2000 the intensity of the Chi-
nese research effort has increased by almost 

50 % and it now has a greater annual volume 
of  publications  than  Japan.  This  growth  is 
admittedly based on volumes that remain lim-
ited.  In  terms  of  purchasing  power,  China 
invests almost seven times less in research than 
the EU and its publications are not frequently 
cited. But there is no mistaking the trend. In the 
field of science, as at the economic, political 
or  military  level,  the  growing  strength  of 
emerging Asia is rapid and dramatic.  

A more homogenous ERA, but lacking 

in dynamism

Adjust the focus and get a closer view and 
study the parts that make up the ERA. At first 
glance, everything appears to be fine. Of the 
27 Member States, 20 have increased the share 
of  their  R&D  budget  in  total  government 
expenditure since 2000. In 17 countries the 
result has been a sometimes dramatic increase 

2006 figures between 
brackets, trends since 
2000

 EU-27
 United States
 Japan

(1) Real trend
(2) 2005
(3) 2000-2005   

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

274
+10%
(1)

214
+15 %
(1)

1 5
1 500

1 2
1 200

9
900

6
600

3
300

0

118
+22 %
(1)

1 388
+8 %

1 301
+18 %

710
+10 %

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

10.7
+11 %

9.3
+3 %

5.6
+12 %

R&D effort 
(in billions of euros)

Number of researchers (FTE)
(in thousands)

Number of researchers (FTE) 
per 1 000 workers

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   8
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   8

08/10/09   17:21
08/10/09   17:21

INTERNATIONAL

A key role 

t  persistent weaknesses

in the intensity of the research effort of more 
than 10 % in 12 of them, some surpassing 50 % 
such as Estonia or Latvia. Yet the curve for the 
intensity of the research effort in the ERA as 
a whole remains desperately flat, stuck since 
2000 at around 1.85 % of GDP.   

How to explain this paradox? Because the 
12 countries that have most intensified their 
research effort account for just 17 % of the EU’s 
GDP. More than half of the GDP is generated 
by  the  demographic  and  economic  heavy-
weights France, Germany, Italy and the United 
Kingdom: four countries that have seen their 
research effort stagnate or even decline. So is 
the glass half full or half empty? The optimists 
will  stress  the  scale  of  the  improvement  – 
helped by the R&D Framework Programme 
and the Structural Funds – on the part of sev-
eral  countries  that  joined  the  EU  in  2004. 
The pessimists will point to the principal Euro-
pean powers that are not living up to their role 
as a driving force.  

Still no European patent…
In sum, Europe is still a leading scientific 
power, but is surpassed by the United States 
and  Japan  in  the  most  dynamic  fields  and 
threatened  by  the  growing  strength  of  the 
emerging  countries,  especially  in  Asia.  Its 
research effort is stagnating, even if the inter-
nal disparities are lessening. How can these 
persistent difficulties in building a genuine 
knowledge economy be explained?  

Economists stress that one of the obvious 
reasons for Europe’s difficulties in converting 

its scientific excellence into economic growth 
lies in the nature of its system for protecting 
intellectual  property.  Registering  a  patent 
remains much more expensive in Europe than 
in the rest of the world. To protect an invention, 
an industrialist spends up to 10 times as much 
in the EU as in the United States, and 13 times 
as much as in Japan. The costs of maintaining 
a  patent  are  even  higher,  often  acting  as 
a deterrent for small businesses that are forced 
to cede their innovative technologies.  

The reason is the complexity of the proce-
dures at the European Patent Office (EPO) in 
Munich (DE). The EPO does not itself issue a 
European patent, but simply acts as kind of 
‘one-stop shop’ that centralises and examines 
patents, possibly then issuing a title that has to 
be converted into national patents. There then 
follows the considerable translation costs, plus 
the legal costs arising out of any opposition to 
the patents that are a matter for the national 
jurisdictions with their sometimes conflicting 
jurisprudence.  

High-tech: of key importance
This cumbersome system for obtaining intel-
lectual protection is not new, however, and in 
recent  years  European  leaders  have  taken 
a number of steps to correct it. The obligation 
to translate the invention description into the 
three official languages has been abolished and 
the  European  Patent  Litigation  Agreement 
reflects on the legal bases of a future Europe-
an Patents Court. The situation is therefore 
improving slowly and the patent issue alone 

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

3.39 %
+11.5 %

2.61 %
-4.5 %

1.84 %
-1.2 %

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

77 %
+6 %

65 %
-7 %

55 %
(2)
-3 %
(3)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

37.6 %
-5 %

31.5 %
-6 %

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

7.8 %
-16 %

33.1 %
-17 %

30.9 %
-14 %

16.3 %
+56 %

Intensity of effort as % 
of GDP

Share of private sector 
financing

Share of publications 
worldwide

Share of patents 
(2005 figures) worldwide

cannot explain the ERA’s slide down the com-
petitiveness rankings and its difficulty in build-
ing a knowledge-based economy.  

A knowledge-based economy goes along 
with high-tech companies. It is high-tech that 
generates most of the private investment in 
which the ERA is so sorely lacking. However, 
the  structure  of  the  European  economy  is 
changing, with a relative disindustralisation and 
a switch to the services sector. This is not yet 
generating much research, less than aeronau-
tics, the motor industry or energy – sectors in 
which the EU retains a leading place – and 
above all the biotechnologies and information 
and communication technologies. It is in these 
last three fields that the EU is being left behind, 
particularly by the United States, where a lot of 
biotechnology start-ups grow into major phar-
maceutical companies with huge R&D budgets. 
In Europe they remain small businesses. The 
same is true in the Internet sector. The EU is 
still waiting for its Genentech or its Google. 

Economic recovery
The picture is not totally bleak, as recent 
years  have  seen  increased  research  in  the 
manu facturing industry and services in Europe. 
But the decisive battle is being played out in 
the  high-tech  industries.  The  Commission 
experts have done their maths and estimate 
that if high-tech European companies could 
match the research effort of their US counter-
parts that would represent a 0.1 % increase, 
when over the past 15 years it has grown by just 
0.06 %. To kick-start such a dynamic these com-
panies must be given the means to grow and 
multiply. Increased support is therefore the key 
to the ERA’s improved international competitive-
ness, and, no doubt, to economic recovery.  

Mikhaïl Stein

   A more research intensive and 
integrated European Research Area
 ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/
key-figures-report2008-2009_en.pdf

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

9

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   9
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   9

08/10/09   17:21
08/10/09   17:21

 
 
 
 
RESULTS

Did you say Lisbon?
“A quantified goal must be pertinent 

Has the Lisbon Strategy failed? 
On one of its main aims, to invest 
3 % of the gross domestic product 
in research, there has been little 
progress. But focusing on this 
criterion is to risk forgetting that 
deeper and less quantifiable 
changes are at work, generated by 
the reforms that Lisbon has brought. 

in terms of its nature as well as 
its level,” says Pierre Vigier, Head 
of Unit at the Commission’s ‘Eco-
nomic  analysis  and  monitoring  of  national 
research policies and the Lisbon strategy’. So 
what about the nature of the goal set in Lisbon 
in March 2000, namely to step up the research 
effort? The challenges facing the European 
economy have not changed: increasing pro-
ductivity in response to the ageing population; 
confronting international competition; prepar-
ing  for  the  increasing  scarcity  of  natural 
resources, starting with fossil fuels. 

Infrastructures to make 
Europe more attractive

No fewer than 35 new major research 

infrastructures could be created, cost-
ing tens if not hundreds of millions of 
euros, and a large majority of them with FP7 
support. Here are some examples, often mainly 
used by researchers outside the EU: the Euro-
pean ice-breaker Borealis, which will be able 
to carry out observation missions on the front 
line of climate change at the polar ice caps; 
ELIXIR (Upgrade of European Bioinformatic 
Infrastructure),  which  will  give  European 
researchers the essential calculating capacities 
for genome analysis; or ELI (Extreme Light 
Infrastructure),  the  world’s  most  powerful 
laser on which not only physicists but also spe-
cialists in rapid electronics or medical imaging 
will be able to work. 

The new era of the 
knowledge society 
was symbolised at 
the Lisbon conference 
by this strange 
mutant bearing the 
holy grail of research 
and innovation. 

n
o
i
s
s
i

m
m
o
C
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E
©

10 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   10
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   10

08/10/09   17:21
08/10/09   17:21

 
 
Their importance has grown even more 

acute. The emerging countries are 
‘upgrading’, now becoming competi-
tive in medium technology products. 
The growing awareness of the dangers of glo-
bal warming – the 2006 Stern report suggested 
that global GDP could fall by between 5 % and 
20 % in the absence of serious steps to combat 
it – has increased the urgency for a genuinely 
sustainable development. More than ever, it is 
by investing in research that the EU can prepare 
to meet the challenges of the 21st century. 

A goal more pertinent than ever
If the nature of the goal is not then open to 
question, is the level perhaps too high? Not at 
all. There is nothing impossible about invest-
ing 3 % of GDP in research. Sweden, Finland, 
Israel and Japan have been doing it for years, 
Switzerland was at 2.9 % in 2004 and South 
Korea has made spectacular progress: from 
2.3 % in 2000, its research effort reached 3.2 % 
in 2007. In a global economy in the grip of 
major technological change, the effort could 
even be further stepped up and exceed the 
famous 3 %. 

The  goal  set  in  Lisbon  thus  remains “the 
appropriate framework for encouraging growth 
and jobs,” especially at a time of crisis, as the 
European Council repeated on 20 March. The 
EU is not alone in making this analysis. On 
27 April, President Obama declared that he had 
set the goal for the United States of investing 
more than 3 % of GDP in research to prepare for 
the future. “The challenge, in short, is nothing 
less than our salvation,” he concluded. It is 
a statement that most certainly applies to the EU. 

A matter of method?
That leaves the matter of the method to 
apply in implementing the Lisbon strategy. This 
is essentially threefold: to increase the research 
effort to reach 3 % (2 % from private financing 
and 1 % from public financing); to facilitate 
exchanges between the private and public sec-
tor; to encourage the creation of skilled jobs 
and high-tech companies. 

Only the first of these lends itself to a sim-
ple quantitative evaluation. It has been suffi-
ciently stressed: the result is not good. In 2007 
just 1.85 % of GDP was invested in research in 
the EU-27, precisely the same level as in 2000. 
“Nevertheless, we must not lose sight of the 

fact that all the Member States have increased 
their research expenditure, in constant euros, 
since 2000,” observes Pierre Vigier. The insist-
ence on the 3 % target, which has become a ver-
itable mantra of scientific policy, has therefore 
indeed served as a mobilising force. 

The reason the ratio has stagnated overall 
in recent years is that economic growth was 
strong prior to 2008 and investment in research 
grew less quickly than the wealth produced. 
The fall in Europe’s GDP expected in 2009 will 
have the automatic effect of producing a rela-
tive increase in the research effort, provided 
Member States maintain their scientific budg-
ets and companies their R&D budgets. Is this 
the case? “The preliminary indicators at our 
disposal show that 23 of the 27 EU countries, 
representing more than 98 % of the EU’s pub-
lic investment in research, are following the 
Commission’s recommendations to respond to 
the crisis by investing in research. Just two 
Member States facing a very difficult financial 
situation were unable to do this,” says a pleased 
Pierre Vigier.

Long-term effects
Another reason for hope lies in the time lag 
between the launch of new policies and the 
figures. Higher education and research systems 
do not change overnight and it is sometimes 
several years before the results of reforms are 
evident. Most Member States have introduced 
legislation to make universities more autono-
mous and thus able to enter into cooperation 
with the private sector. Work is currently in 
progress to develop a European system for the 
international comparison of universities with 
a wider rage of criteria than the famous Shang-
hai classification. This should make it possible 
to make a better appraisal of the international 
performance of European universities. 

Most  Member  States  have  increased  the 
share of public laboratory financing obtained 
following calls for competition and some of 
this  public  financing  is  now  open  to  non-
nationals. Problems of taxation, pensions and 
career progress that have traditionally proved 
obstacles  to  researcher  mobility  are  being 
resolved progressively. Refuting the idea of an 
old Europe that is stuck in its ways, US com-
panies are increasingly directing their R&D 
investments at the EU countries (more than 
62 %). 

RESULTS

Developing growth markets
Will the private sector seize the new oppor-
tunities to work with the public sector and to 
develop innovative products? This will be the 
ultimate test of the success – or failure – of the 
Lisbon strategy. One figure sums up the situa-
tion:  49 %  of  European  researchers  are 
employed in the private sector compared with 
80 % in the United States and 68 % in Japan. 
Private sector research must be strengthened 
and its results converted into added value if 
the EU is to create a genuine knowledge-driven 
economy, and it is on achieving this that the 
post-2010 effort and reorientation as currently 
being defined must focus. 

The results of the Joint Technology Initia-
tives  and  Technology  Platforms,  two  new 
instruments to stimulate innovation under the 
Seventh  Framework  Programme  (FP7),  are 
mixed. Industrialists criticise their complexity and 
administrative inflexibility that act as a deterrent 
to SMEs. “The private sector will only make 
major investments in fields with growth markets 
and where there is a potential demand for new 
products with a high technological component,” 
believes Pierre Vigier. The Commission’s Lead 
Market Initiative for Europe has identified six 
such markets: on-line health, intelligent textiles, 
durable construction methods, renewable ener-
gies, recycling technology and new products of 
plant origin. The FP7 initiatives could favour 
these fields but more sustained commitment 
on the part of the Member States would be 
necessary. 

The reforms to stimulate private investment 
and to forge closer links with the academic 
sector have therefore not yet produced the 
expected  results,  and  sometimes  generate 
a certain pessimism. It is in mid-stream that the 
current is strongest and that the opposite bank 
seems most difficult to reach. That is exactly 
the situation the EU finds itself in today. 

Mikhaïl Stein

   Lead Market Initiative for Europe
 ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/
innovation/policy/lead-market-initiative/
index_en.htm
Lisbon strategy
lisbon.cor.europa.eu

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

11

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   11
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   11

08/10/09   17:22
08/10/09   17:22

 
 
 
 
 
 
SPACE

Since 1999, the European 
Union and ESA have 
cooperated on a number 
of major projects. It is 
a partnership that should 
contribute fully to creating 
an attractive European 
Research Area and serve 
the ambitions of European 
space policy.

or  Earth  observation,  space 
has become an economic field 
of  top  priority.  Europe  also 
needs a strong space policy if it is to make best 
use of a sector that is becoming increasingly 
vital  for  the  knowledge-driven  economy  it 
wants to create. 

Logically, EU activities linked to space appli-
cations as tools in support of its policy are very 
much in line with the mission of the European 
Space Agency (ESA), a research and develop-
ment body. Most EU countries are members of 
this intergovernmental organisation, and most 
of  the  others  have  concluded  cooperation 
agreements with it. This cooperation between 
the European Commission and ESA is therefore 
natural, each having, in a sense, developed its 
own European Research Area (ERA) dedicated 
to space and with many potential synergies 
between the two.  

In 2004, the Commission and ESA signed 
a four-year agreement, subsequently extended 
through to 2012, that lays the foundations for 
a fruitful cooperation between the two institu-
tions. A liaison office in Brussels facilitates 
communication between them. In May 2007, 
29 European countries ratified the new Euro-

12 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

Space research, a condens
Whether for telecommunications 

pean space policy signed jointly by the EU and 
ESA. Two projects, Galileo and Global Monitor-
ing for the Environment and Security (GMES), 
managed by the EU with the ESA responsible 
for their technical development and deploy-
ment, are currently spearheading developments. 
These are often cited as a testimony to the suc-
cess of European space policy and are actively 
contributing  to  the  ERA’s  ability  to  attract 
researchers from throughout the world. 

a consortium of aerial navigation services sup-
pliers (European Satellite Services Provider). It 
should be operational in October 2009. But it 
was back in 1999, following initial studies with 
a view to EGNOS that generated the necessary 
skills and know-how, that the European Com-
mission decided to work on the concept of 
a European system. This would provide global 
cover with ground installations spread uniform-
ly across Europe as well as at various locations 
around the world. 

European radionavigation
Galileo and EGNOS (European Geostation-
ary Navigation Overlay Service) are European 
satellite radionavigation programmes. Galileo 
is able to pinpoint a terrestrial emitter in space 
and time through crossed signal reception by 
several satellites. Following agreements signed 
in 2004 with the US government, Galileo will 
be  compatible  and  interoperable  with  the 
American GPS system. When its 30 satellites are 
launched, Galileo should be able to ensure 
Europe’s navigational independence at the scien-
tific, commercial and strategic level. 

EGNOS, the forerunner of Galileo, improves 
GPS performances in Europe. Equally financed 
by the EU and the ESA, this infrastructure was 
developed  by  the  ESA  and  is  managed  by 

After the programme encountered difficulties 
in negotiations with the private sector with a 
view to a concession-based financing of deploy-
ment and operation, in November 2007 the EU 
decided to go ahead with launching the project 
with public funds only. Norway and Switzerland, 
neither of them EU members but both of them 
ESA members, negotiated with the EU their par-
ticipation in the Galileo programme. By virtue 
of the free, international and public access it 
provides, Galileo has attracted interest beyond 
Europe. The EU has concluded several agree-
ments with third countries inte rested in coop-
erating  while  the  Seventh  Framework 
Programme (FP7) has enabled several compa-
nies in third countries to participate in its work. 
The emerging space ERA is therefore attracting 

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   12
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   12

08/10/09   17:22
08/10/09   17:22

A European global navigation 
system, Galileo will have around 
30 satellites permitting location 
in time and space at any moment. 

SPACE

The second satellite in the 
Galileo system, Giove B 
(here setting off for its launch 
in Baikonour, April 2008) will 
make it possible to test the most 
precise atomic clock ever 
launched into space. 

A
S
E
©

A
S
E
©

nsed ERA 

researchers from outside the EU, making the EU 
as a whole a more attractive area for scientists. 

Environment and security
The GMES programme, in which the EU, the 
ESA and their Member States have made major 
research and development investments, is a Euro-
pean Earth observation programme whose ini-
tial concept dates back to 1998. Although less 
known to the general public, it is nevertheless 
making a major contribution to the creation of 
a space ERA. GMES aims to deliver a wide range 
of information to its users in areas ranging from 
climate change to ocean and even border sur-
veillance. 

This information is collected via space and 
terrestrial  infrastructures.  The  former  are 
co ordinated, developed and exploited princi-
pally by ESA and EUMETSAT, the European 
meteorological satellite operating system. The 
latter are more heterogeneous, some national 
and others international, and are dependent on 
various research agreements or programmes. 
They are coordinated by the European Envi-
ronment Agency. The EU’s FP7 finances the 
various services responsible for analysing the 
information and disseminating it in the form of 
databases, maps or reports. 

Given the multitude of partnerships, each of 
these information services is regarded as an 
ERA success story in itself. The LAND service, 
for example, which aims to provide informa-
tion on land use and water quality, is part of 
the FP7 geoland2 project that is managed by 
a  consortium  headed  by  Astrium  and  that 
includes 50 partners. The MARINE service seeks, 
among other things, to manage marine resourc-
es or coastal activities and is linked to the FP7 
MyOcean project with more than 60 European 
partners  headed  by  Mercator  Ocean.  The 
ATMOSPHERE service, which monitors green-
house gases, air quality and aerosols, has its 
roots in the FP7 MACC project. The EMERGENCY 
service,  concerned  with  civil  protection, 
humanitarian aid and security and its develop-
ments, is managed by the FP7 SAFER project 
that aims to bring together the best risk man-
agement and emergency projects developed by 
the European institutions. The environmental 
data obtained through GMES Earth Observation 
also contributes fully to the ERA objectives, 
namely  resolving  global  problems  such  as 
climate change. 

Although strong links with organisations 
outside Europe enable the EU to benefit from 
scientific progress worldwide, it is above all the 

coordination of European research resources 
and potential that lies at the heart of Galileo and 
GMES, and that has enabled the EU and the ESA 
to learn to overcome structural difficulties and 
to partly function within a common organisa-
tion. But the mechanisms put into place must 
still be perfected and adapted, while others 
remain to be invented to ensure optimal effi-
ciency and complementarity between the two 
organisations.  

Stéphane Fay

   ESA
 www.esa.int
GMES
www.gmes.info
Galileo
ec.europa.eu/transport/galileo

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

13

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   13
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   13

08/10/09   17:22
08/10/09   17:22

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O
S
E
©

An ‘open day’ organised 
by the ESO: non-specialists 
will have the opportunity 
to find out more about 
astronomy and the work 
of scientists trying to unravel 
the mysteries of the cosmos. 

e
c
i
m
A
n
a
w
r
E
/
e
u
q
è
h
t
o
t
o
h
P
S
R
N
C
©

t
e
u
g
a
R
t
r
e
b
u
H
/
e
u
q
è
h
t
o
t
o
h
P
S
R
N
C
©

n
o
i
s
s
i

m
m
o
C
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E
©

14 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   14
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   14

08/10/09   17:22
08/10/09   17:22

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Draw me the ERA!

Understanding the European Research Area (ERA) and the 
complex terminology used to define it during its creation is certainly 
a formidable task but not an insurmountable one. “One only 
understands the things that one tames,” says the fox in Saint-Exupéry’s 
fable, The Little Prince. In order to feel comfortable with the various 
structures and tools that enable European research to meet citizens’ 
needs and are helping to build the soaring edifice of the ERA, we need 
to start by taming them. “What does that mean, ‘tame’?” asks the 
little prince. “It means to establish ties,” answers the fox.  
To the average person, the European Research Area remains an 
abstract institutional concept with no direct bearing on their daily 
lives. This misconception needs to be corrected by ‘humanising’ 
the inner workings of this powerhouse designed to propel Europe 
into the ranks of a knowledge and society economy.

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   15
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   15

08/10/09   17:22
08/10/09   17:22

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

15

 
HISTORY

To appreciate just how much 
of a milestone the ‘European 
Research Area’ concept repre-
sented when it was launched 
10 years ago, it needs to be 
seen as the culmination of 
a disparate but inexorable 
long-term aspiration that first 
emerged several decades ago.

Back in the early 1980s, the Europe 

of 10 realised that a united front 
was required to tackle the changes 
taking place in science and techno-
logy. Europe was emerging from the profound 
upheavals caused by the oil crises, just as a burst 
of technological growth was triggering rapid 
change in the leading world economies and in 
industrial structures. The term ‘information 

society’ was coined, as Europe looked on in 
amazement at what was happening not only 
on the other side of the Atlantic – where the 
USA was channelling considerable resources 
into research – but also in Japan and among 
the other young ‘Asian tigers’.

Europe’s microelectronics industry had fall-
en behind in its attempt to compete in the 
microchip race, from which it would, to a large 
extent, be eliminated. Behind the computer sci-
ence wave, other waves were forming. Tech-
nological innovations were breeding as yet 
futuristic societal concepts, such as biosociety 
and the knowledge economy, but policymak-
ers  and  scientific  leaders  were  fearful  that 
Europe might wake up too late.

Admittedly, the Old Continent still boasted 
a number of sector leaders, such as the Euro-
pean  Organization  for  Nuclear  Research 
(CERN), the European Southern Observatory 
(ESO), the European Space Agency (ESA) and 
the European Molecular Biology Organization 
(EMBO), all world-ranking centres of excel-
lence created by intergovernmental coopera-
tion agreements. However, apart from these 

cooperative efforts, all Europe’s other main-
springs of public research, in both universities 
and scientific bodies, were rooted firmly in the 
compartmentalised fields of their respective 
countries.

Two responses
The ‘new technological waves’ elicited two 
types of response in Europe. The first was the 
still-active but vaguely defined intergovern-
mental initiative Eureka. Eureka led to the 
establishment of a variety of industrial coop-
eration ventures that were to have a positive 
technological impact, particularly in the tele-
communications and automobile industries. 
Nevertheless, its structuring influence left prac-
tically no lasting trace. By contrast, under the 
impetus of Belgian Commissioner Etienne Dav-
ignon, in 1984 the Commission was mandated 
to build a research capability that would go 
beyond the very limited guidelines of the Treaty 
of Rome: this was when the R&D Framework 
Programme (FP) concept was born.

Just like Eureka, the first FP promoted grants 
for funding projects but its guiding principles 

European research, 
slow but steady progress

16 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   16
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   16

08/10/09   17:22
08/10/09   17:22

defined some set objectives. And, most impor-
tantly,  for  the  first  time  budgets  were  ear-
marked for this new outline European research 
policy. Europe’s scientific world, including uni-
versities, research centres and industry, enthu-
siastically espoused this new approach. By 1998, 
the budget for FP5 had risen to EUR 15 billion. 
The initial concept had expanded to include 
a growing range of scientific fields. Environ-
mental science, energy and transport techno-
logy, and the human and social sciences were 
carving out an increasingly important role for 
themselves, whilst the creation of Marie Curie 
fellowships boosted researcher mobility.

The mobilisation generated by the future 
EU’s support for research – providing an attrac-
tive new source of funding – led to a boom in 
cooperative practices in Europe. “The research 
teams that were, in one way or another, asso-
ciated with FPs in the field of the exact and 
natural sciences included all the leading Euro-
pean researchers of world repute, amongst them 
virtually all Europe’s Nobel Prize – winners,” 
points out Michel André, adviser to the Euro-
pean Commission’s DG Research. What is more, 

HISTORY

the FPs have led to cross-fertilisation, with 
benefits  that  have  been  widely  distributed 
among the Member States, thanks to the select 
quality of the multinational research teams that 
have been involved in the projects.

A new policy vision
Despite  all  this,  as  the  new  millennium 
loomed, the overall indicators for research in 
Europe continued to stagnate in comparison 
with the USA, as well as with the rest of an 
increasingly multipolar world, arousing serious 
misgivings from both the institutional and eco-
nomic standpoints. It was becoming clear that 
the  scope  of  the  Framework  Programme 
needed  to be defined within a clear policy 
vision of a European Research Area (ERA). 
Negotiated briskly by Philippe Busquin, Euro-
pean Commissioner for research in Romano 
Prodi’s Commission, and José Mariano Gago, 
the Portuguese minister serving as President of 
the European Council of Research Ministers, 
this change of direction was effected with the 
creation of the Lisbon strategy, which made the 
ERA one of its cornerstones.

As Michel André wryly states: “With the ERA, 
the boundaries between what depends on the 
EU, what is European and what happens on 
Europe’s territory, became more blurred than 
ever.” This is only a superficial paradox though, 
because the ultimate aim of the ERA is not to 
bring down borders, but to make them more 
porous. The term European Research ‘Area’ is 
a deliberate reference to the concept of free 
movement, a key principle of Euro pean inte-
gration from the very outset. Freedom of move-
ment for people, goods, capital and services 
has already been recognised and must now be 
applied to knowledge and the researchers who 
produce it.

As a Community instrument, the FP now 
forms part of a much more open and global 
approach. In 2007, the Commission published 
a green paper on the ERA at the initiative of 
current research Commissioner Janez Potocˇnik. 
It involved a far-reaching consultation with 
public and private stakeholders, which culmi-
nated, in 2008, in five initiatives for remedying 
research fragmentation in Europe (see chart on 
page 18). Following the Ljubljana meetings, it also 
resulted in the adoption of a new form of gov-
ernance  for  European  research,  aimed  at 
achieving the goals of Vision 2020 for the Euro-
pean Research Area, shared by the entire Union. 
“The policy approach defined at Ljubljana points 
the way towards a more structured and coor-
dinated ERA,” says Jana Kolar, Director-General 
of the Science Directorate in Slovenia’s Ministry 
of Higher Education, Science and Technology. 
“Its adoption will impact heavily on the R&D pol-
icies of Member States, which will need to adapt 
to changes in the research landscape in order 
to remain competitive.”

These new initiatives, implemented in close 
partnership with the EU Member States, are 
designed to facilitate the creation of the large-
scale scientific and technical infrastructure that 
Europe needs; to set up joint research pro-
grammes with national authorities; to abolish 
barriers to researcher mobility and careers; to 
facilitate cross-border knowledge-sharing and 
to create a common strategic framework encom-
passing the international cooperation activities 
of Member States and the EU.

Alongside these ‘direct’ actions, the ERA 
serves as a framework for restructuring the very 
foundations of Europe’s research system, starting 
with the modernisation and autonomy of univer-
sities, an issue that is being widely debated at 
present (see article page 26). 

Didier Buysse

A chapter still being written
Ten years ago, the ERA opened a new chap-
ter in Europe’s history, not by abolishing the 
existing FP structure, but by ramping it up. With 
FP7 (2007–2013, worth EUR 54 billion), the 
annual budgets have increased by almost 50 % 
in real terms. In response to strong demand 
from Europe’s scientific community, one of its 
most  novel  features  is  the  new  European 
Research Council (ERC), a competitive entity 
with a budget of EUR 7.5 billion between now 
and the year 2013 to spend on basic science.

n
o
i
s
s
i

m
m
o
C
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E
©

   ec.europa.eu/research/era/

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

17

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   17
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   17

08/10/09   17:22
08/10/09   17:22

 
 
 
 
ORGANISATION

ERA at a glance

The ERA (European Research Area) consists 
of all R&D activities, programmes and 
policies designed and implemented in Europe 
with a transnational perspective. Developing 
the ERA first meant insuring the free 
circulation of researchers and knowledge 
in the EU. It also put into place a favourable 
environment for scientific and technical 
exchanges on a European scale and open 
to the world.

European Union

FP7 Seventh Framework 
Programme

cordis.europa.eu/fp7/
ec.europa.eu/research/

COOPERATION
Specific programmes – 
collaborative research
•  Health 
•  Food, agriculture and fishing, 
biotechnologies
•  Information and communication 
technology
•  Nanotechnology and nano-
sciences, knowledge-based 
multifunctional materials and 
new production processes and 
devices 
•  Energy 
•  Environment (including climate 
change)

•  Transport (including aeronautics)
•  Social science and humanities
•  Space
•  Security 

ERA-NET scheme – 
Coordination of research activities

Joint Technology Initiatives
•  IMI – Innovative Medicines 
Initiative
•  ARTEMIS – Embedded 
Computing Systems initiative
•  CLEAN SKY – Aeronautics and 
air transport
•  ENIAC – Nanoelectronics 2020 
initiative
•  FCH – Fuel cells and hydrogen 
initiative

IDEAS
•  ERC – European research council

HUMAN RESOURCES
•  Marie Curie Actions

CAPACITIES
•  Research infrastructures 
•  Research for SMEs
•  Knowledge regions
•  Research potential 
of convergence regions
•  Science in society 
•  Support for development 
of coherent research policies
•  International cooperation 

JRC – Joint Research Centre
ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm

•  IRMM – Institute for Reference 
Materials and Measurements 
•  IE – Energy Institute
•  IES – Institute for Environment 
and Suitability 
•  ITU – Institute for Transuranium 
Elements
•  IPSC – Institute for the Protection 
and Security of the Citizen 
•  IHCP – Institute for Health and 
Consumer Protection
•  IPTS – Institute for Prospective 
Technology Studies 

CIP – Competitiveness 
and innovation Framework 
Programme 
cordis.europa.eu/fp7/cip_en.html

i2010: A European 
Information Society for 
growth and employment 
cordis.europa.eu/fp7/i2010_en.html

Research and 
Regional policy
cordis.europa.eu/fp7/
regional_en.html

EIT – European Institute 
of Technology
cordis.europa.eu/fp7/eit_en.html

© CERN

with

© Shutterstock

Modern and autonomous universities, 
organisations and networks, specialised centres 
of excellence, interdisciplinary and diversiﬁed, 
both public and private. 

oﬀering attractive career perspectives and adequate 
A single European market for researchers, 
training throughout one’s career, as well as geographic 
and sectoral mobility (also outside of the EU) 
and transparent recruitment procedures. 

     A strategic, international opening of the ERA, with an emphasis on regional neighbours and
The 5th freedom: free circulation of r

Universities and resea

© Shutterstock

© ESRF

D

0
e 2

nce for the ERA, 
P used for research. 
20 horizon
8: 
0
a
0
ern
n for th
g 2
v
rin
o
% of G
al g
p
n visio
a, s
olitic
n
ja
t p
l
b
u
n
j
e
L
i
c
ﬃ
e
r
o
f
r
e
m

o
m
m
o
 c
a
n
o
d
e
s
u
c
o
f

f 3
l o
a
o
 g
e
h
t
s
d
r
a
w
o
t
d
n
a

i
r
P

k
c
o
t
s
r
e
t
t
u
h
S
©

s
r
e
h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R

© P.Ginter/ESRF

18 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

Society 

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   18
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   18

08/10/09   17:22
08/10/09   17:22

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EYCI 2009 – European 
Year of Creativity and 
Innovation
create2009.europa.eu/

CREST – Scientific and 
Technical Research 
Committee
www.consilium.europa.eu/
showPage.aspx?id=1422&lang=en

ERAB – European Research 
Area Board
ec.europa.eu/research/erab/

Member States 
joint programmes 
and organisations

EUROHORCs – European 
Heads of Research Councils

www.eurohorcs.org

© CERN

World class research infrastructures, 
with possible EU support, accessible to teams across Europe 
– particularly in part to strong IT networks 

ours and on the major global challenges for the planet, in cooperation with all global partners. 
Eﬃcient knowledge sharing and transfers through 
knowledge communities involving the world of research, 
business and civil society, underpinned by proper 
management of intellectual property. 
on of researchers and knowledge      

and research centres  

Optimisation of rese
and investment pro

© Euro
p
e
a
n C
o
m
mis
sio
n

© Shutterstock

© Shutterstock

– with p
– on n
atio
ossible E
in
gra
d
n
ustr
al a
m
m
n
y p
e
d r
s b
a
e
r
gio
e
t
n
t
w
e
n
r
e
s
a
e
h
l l
n 
i
p
e
M
s
v
. 
e
e
l
m
s
–
b
e
r
S
t
a
t
e
s

arc
h ﬁ
n
a
n
cin
g
: c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

U f
a
v
o
u
ri
n
g l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y

© Shutterstock

Society 

ORGANISATION

EIROforum – European 
Intergovernmental 
Research Organisations

EUREKA – A European 
network for market- 
oriented R&D

www.eiroforum.org

www.eureka.be

•  CERN – European Centre 
for Nuclear Research
•  EFDA JET – European Fusion 
Development Agreement
•  EMBL – European Molecular 
Biology Laboratory
•  ESA – European Space Agency
•  ESO – European Organisation 
for Astronomical Research 
in the Southern Hemisphere
•  ILL – Institute Laue-Langevin
•  ESRF – European Synchrotron 
Radiation Facility 

ESF – European Science 
Foundation

www.esf.org

•  EuroBioFund – EuroBioForum
•  EUROCORES – European 
Collaborative Research Scheme
•  EURYI – European Young 
Investigator Awards

COST – European 
Cooperation in Science 
and Technology

www.cost.esf.org

EUREKA Thematic Areas
•  Electronics ICT
•  Industrial production, material 
and transport technology
•  Other industrial technology
•  Energy technology
•  Chemistry, physics and exact 
sciences
•  Biological science
•  Agriculture and marine resources 
•  Agro-food technology
•  Measures and norms
•  Technology for human and 
environmental protection

National 
and regional 
programmes and 
organisations

ERAWATCH portal 

cordis.europa.eu/erawatch

Developed by the European 
Commission, the ERAWATCH 
portal provides information on 
European, national and regional 
level research policy, on actors and 
programmes in the EU and else-
where. It covers information from 
43 countries.

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

19

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   19
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   19

08/10/09   17:22
08/10/09   17:22

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROSTARS

The treasure 
seekers

A new partnership between Eureka and the EU has been 
set up to support research-intensive SMEs, in order to help 
drive forward economic growth. The programme should 
unearth whole pearls of European ingenuity. 

Cancer cells are remarkably adept at 

fending off drugs; that is one of the 
reasons  why  a  complete  cancer 
cure has thus far defeated the medi-
cal field. One of the most subtle ways a cell 
dodges therapeutic attacks is by enclosing and 
degrading the drug molecule in vesicles inside 
the cell – known as endosomes. Efforts to 
address this problem – widely acknowledged 
in medical research – have so far had limited 
results. But scientists at the Norwegian com-
pany PCI Biotech reckon they may be on the 
way to solving this problem. They have found 
that  if  they  inject  photosensitisers  into  the 
patient at the same time as they inject the drug, 
the  photosensitisers  are  absorbed  into  the 
membrane of the endosome. By shining a light 
on the membrane, they destroy it and the drug 
is released into the cell.

PCI Biotech’s invention sounds like a won-
derful new treatment that could save many 
lives. But getting therapeutic treatments such 
as these to market is an expensive business, 
and medical technology is a very competitive 
field. However, PCI Biotech, funded by the new 
Eurostars programme – a European innovation 
fund specially targeted at SMEs – is one step 
closer to seeing its product in clinical use. The 
Eurostars funding will pay for clinical trials that 
will explore ways to illuminate the tumour 
under the skin by inserting an optical fibre 
through the skin or body cavity and into the 
tumour. 

“There is substantial experience of using 
photosensitiser compounds in therapy but not 
in terms of redeeming the molecule from the 
endosome. Using illumination techniques on the 
endosome is exclusively our own invention,” 

explains Dr. Anders Høgset, the company’s 
Chief  Scientific  Officer.  One  of  the  main 
impacts of the technique will be to improve 
how specifically cancer therapies can be direct-
ed at the tumour. 

A flying start
PCI Biotech is one of nearly 200 European 
companies that have benefitted from Eurostars 
cash,  which  first  started  to  flow  in  2008. 
It received EUR 1.1 million. “For a company 
like ours, that’s a lot of money,” says Høgset. 
Like most Eurostars beneficiaries, the compa-
ny had been operating for some years already, 
but was looking to step up to a new phase in 
its development. It currently employs nine peo-
ple and was floated on the Oslo stock exchange 
in 2008. It has no income at the moment and 
exists on research grants. When the technology 
is ready, it will licence it to companies that 
make drugs that can benefit from it, rather than 
selling or using it directly.

Small companies can grow in a variety of 
ways. They can be privately funded by angel 
investors or private equity. They can seek ven-
ture capital or a stock exchange listing. But 
they most need help in the earlier years of their 
lives. Bernd Reichert, head of the SME unit at 
DG Research, says they are a crucial aspect of 
Europe’s economic development, since they 
represent 99 % of all companies. “They are 
responsible for job creation and are drivers of 
innovation,” he states.

For that reason, the Eurostars programme 
came into being. Managed by Eureka, it has 
already taken its creators by surprise. 25 % of 
funds originate from the European Commis-
sion, which has budgeted for EUR 100 million 
to 2013, with the balance coming from the 

Medicine, a field where SMEs 
can play an important role. 
Microbeads based on cyclodextrins 
– these naturally formed cage 
molecules can encapsulate many 
different molecules and are often 
used in pharmacology.  

20 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   20
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   20

08/10/09   17:23
08/10/09   17:23

EUROSTARS

35 people. Its part in the SESS project is to pro-
vide signal processing hardware and the com-
munication  technology  needed  to  monitor 
a  turbine  blade.  EC  Electronic  has  already 
developed equivalent monitoring products for 
other parts of the turbine, such as the gearbox 
or bearings. 

“SESS’s aim is to detect critical damage in 
select areas in the blade. SESS analytics will 
make it possible to understand if a given crack 
or other type of damage will likely propagate 
and if so, what it will look like,” explains Artur 
Hanc, director of EC Group. “A unique feature 
of the SESS is that it will rely on both active 
and passive sensing, which means that you not 
only find out if there is some failure or damage 
when it happens or begins to happen, but you 
also can ‘ask’ the sensor to check the blade 
hotspots for damage. This lets you better assess 
the structural health of the blade hotspots,” 
says Hanc. 

None  of  the  Eurostars  beneficiaries  are 
actually stars yet. But it is hoped that a few will 
begin to sparkle within a couple of years. 

Elisabeth Jeffries

32  participating  countries.  According  to 
Reichert, it is the first project of its kind in 
Europe. 

“Eurostars is the first programme across 
Europe which puts R&D intensive SMEs into 
a leadership role. Its goals are set around the 
needs and desires of SMEs,” he says, adding 
that SMEs can benefit from the FP but that the 
applications are usually rather too expensive 
and time consuming to suit them. The sole aim 
of Eurostars, on the other hand, is to help com-
panies fast track their products into a full com-
mercial  life  and  accelerate  their  growth. 
“High-tech SMEs want to be quick; their mar-
ket environment is changing very fast. The Euros-
tars project works much more quickly… we 
hope we can help SMEs put new products on 
the market and innovate faster,” says Reichert. 

Stars in the ascendant
Projects can last up to three years and the 
aim is to help companies get the final product 
on the market within two years. Start-ups are 
not the priority; instead, the fund assists com-
panies who are already a fair way through to full 
commercialisation or product development and 
who employ up to 35 people. It also focuses on 
technology driven companies that are spending 
at least 10 % of their turnover on research and 
development. The beneficiaries tend to operate 
in high-tech sectors such as information and 
communications technologies, biomedical and 
healthcare and industrial materials.

“When we did the first call in 2008 we didn’t 
expect  so  many  R&D  performing  SMEs  to 
apply. More accurately, we didn’t know so 
many of them even existed,” remembers Michel 
Vanavermaete, Eurostars operations manager 
at Eureka. Both funding rounds have attracted 

hundreds of applicants, with an average of 
3.5 partners per project and an average funding 
requirement of EUR 2.9 million. To the surprise 
of Vanavermaete and his colleagues, relevant 
SMEs have also emerged from some of the EU’s 
smaller and poorer countries in Eastern Europe. 
One of the main characteristics of the project 
is to assist companies using a “bottom-up” 
approach in which each case is considered on 
its own merits. The team is hoping that the pro-
gramme will help identify and nurture future 
stars that help grow Europe’s economy and 
develop into bigger companies: “We’re inter-
ested in the companies that will become the 
Googles of tomorrow. Our ambition is for the EU 
to develop large companies from the medium 
sized segment – we feel this is the way to go,” 
says Luuk Borg, Eureka’s director; companies 
with a high turnover growth rate – perhaps as 
high as 180 % – have particularly high chances 
of getting funding. 

Eastern promise
Environmental business is another fast grow-
ing sector that the programme has supported. 
Wind power has been developing quickly across 
Europe, from Denmark to Portugal, bringing 
employment for thousands of people not just at 
project development companies but in manu-
facturing and the supply chain – from turbine 
production to spare parts. EC Group in Poland 
is one of the companies benefitting as a result. 
It wants to make devices that help spot flaws in 
wind turbines and is part of a bigger venture 
known as the Smart Embedded Sensor System 
(SESS) based in Poland, Estonia and Denmark 
and funded by the Eurostars Programme. 

EC Group is on the electronics manufactur-
ing  side  of  the  consortium  and  employs 

Renewable energy and technology 
both offer interesting niches for small, high-tech companies. 

t
e
u
g
a
R
t
r
e
b
u
H
/
e
u
q
è
h
t
o
t
o
h
P
S
R
N
C
©

k
c
o
t
s
r
e
t
t
u
h
S
©

   Eurostars
 www.eurostars-eureka.eu
SESS
www.sess-eurostars.eu
PCI Biotech
www.pcibiotech.no

k
c
o
t
s
r
e
t
t
u
h
S
©

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

21

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   21
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   21

08/10/09   17:23
08/10/09   17:23

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JOINT PROGRAMMING

Alzheimer’s,
Alzheimer’s,
Alzheimer’s,

20 European countries and 
the European Commission 
agreed to fight neuro-
degenerative diseases 
together by coordinating 
their research programmes 
around common objectives.

It discretely settles in the vagaries of the 

mind of one out of 20 people over the 
age of 65. Little by little, it takes hold of 
one’s memories, the most recent first – 
and sometimes even the memories of loved 
one’s faces – it spreads like an oil spill in the 
ocean, and destroys everything in its path. 
Memory, attention, language, behaviour and 
mood problems - it operates in all areas and is 
at the centre of the deterioration of its victim’s 
condition, progressively denying them their 
independence. “It”  is  dementia,  an  illness 
affecting 7.3 million Europeans, a number that, 
with the ageing of the population, could double 
by 2020 according to epidemiologists’ estima-
tions. In terms of health care, dementia already 
costs the EU around EUR 120 million per year. 
Thus  there  is  interest  to  increase  research 
efforts in the field, particularly for Alzheimer’s 
disease,  which  counts  for  close  to  70 %  of 
dementia cases.  

Collaboration, coordination…
The problem of increasing prevalence of 
neurodegenerative illnesses associated with 
the ageing of the population is not new. Mem-

22 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

ber States and the European Commission have 
for  several  years  allocated  financial  and 
human resources to this field. During the Sixth 
Research Framework Programme (FP6) 2002-
2006, the EU financed 25 collaborative projects 
on these diseases with EUR 111 million of 
funding, a third of which was dedicated to the 
study of Alzheimer’s disease. Efforts were fur-
ther  strengthened  under  FP7  (2007-2013), 
as one-third of funding designated for brain 
research in 2008-2009 was allocated to neuro-
degenerative disease research. But if impor-
tant  discoveries  have  been  made  in  recent 
years, there is still no treatment for Alzheimer’s 
disease, and the risk factors are still unknown. 
Thus it is necessary to increase efforts and 
improve the efficiency of methods used. How? 
By emphasising transnational coordination of 
fundamental, clinical and social research in 
the field.

Close to 85 % of public research funds in 
the EU are spent independently by Member 
States. Recently, the EU increased collabora-
tion tools (ERA-NET actions, Article 169 initi-
atives),  in  order  to  allow  coordination  of 
national research programmes. One success 
story is the implementation of collaboration 
tools  and  research  on  rare  illnesses.  Until 
three years ago, before the launch of E-Rare 
(ERA-NET for research programmes on rare 
diseases), national research programmes in the 
field were independent. Today E-Rare allows 
them to work with a larger pool of patients and 
to share results as well as financial resources. 
In fact, 40 % of funds dedicated to research on 
rare diseases by Member States in E-Rare are 
part of joint calls. But if these collaboration 
tools have had an effect comparable to that 
of fertiliser on uncultivated land in certain 
sectors, the scope of the problem is such that 
these tools are not enough. 

… and a strategic research agenda
The joint programme was born at a time of 
success and blockages between national pro-
grammes.  Of  these  blockages,  there  were 
three main problems: reaching critical mass, 
obtaining policy-level backing and agreeing 
on framework conditions, requiring a decision 
taken by the research minister. The framework 
conditions represent everything that ensures 
the machine functions properly (joint calls, 
rules for participations and compatible intel-
lectual property, etc.). Introduced in a July 
2008 Commission Communication, the new 
concept of collaboration, dubbed joint pro-
gramming, aims at Member States defining 

e
c
i
m
A
n
a
w
r
E
/
e
u
q
è
h
t
o
t
o
h
P
S
R
N
C
©

a  common  vision  and  a  strategic  research 
agenda to address societal challenges which 
national  programmes  cannot  respond  to 
alone. “A very important point about the joint 
programme is that the participation of Mem-
ber States and Associated Countries is on a 
voluntary basis,” explains Philippe Amouyel, 
Director General of the Institut Pasteur de Lille 
(FR) and coordinator of the research path of 
the French Alzheimer’s plan. 

“In summary, to establish a joint programme, 
a theme must be chosen with a major societal 

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   22
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   22

08/10/09   17:23
08/10/09   17:23

 
 
 
JOINT PROGRAMMING

guidance and available financial resources,” 
says Philippe Amouyel. From a management 
structure point of view, a committee was put 
into place and met for the first time last June. 
The scientific council, meanwhile, is being 
constructed. 

Even if a first efficiency evaluation of the 
joint programme on Alzheimer’s disease and 
other neurodegenerative diseases cannot be 
conducted before 2015 – when we will be able 
to evaluate the added value it offers, in terms of 
research results and the collaboration of partici-
pating states – this pilot initiative could never-
theless rapidly open the path towards other 
similar programmes, notably in the domain of 
energy technology and agricultural research.  
Audrey Binet

a pilot initiative

impact and a strategic agenda between Member 
States wishing to participate must be defined. 
And to make all of this function, there needs 
to  be  a  management  structure”,  continues 
Philippe Amouyel. The idea is not to spend 
more money, but to use the money invested in 
research fields common in all European coun-
tries (renewable energies, climate change, neu-
rodegenerative  diseases,  etc.)  coordinating 
national programmes around common objec-
tives and a common time-line in a more effi-
cient manner. This approach will allow the EU 
to better focus its resources on tackling societal 
challenges, speak with one voice on the inter-
national stage, improve the quality of research 

e
c
i
m
A
n
a
w
r
E
/
e
u
q
è
h
t
o
t
o
h
P
S
R
N
C
©

Brain imaging shows, on the left, the hippocampus 
of a healthy subject and, on the right, that of 
a patient with Alzheimer’s disease. With software 
imaging developed by researchers, radiologists can 
access all of the hippocampus, represented in red 
on the cross-section. This brain structure plays 
a fundamental role for memory and is affected in 
the first stages of the disease. 

proposals and pool information and experts 
across different Member States and Associated 
Countries. “Joint Programming is not a new col-
laboration instrument that will be added to the 
many pre-existing tools. It is an approach that 
can, when appropriate, use those tools to help 
Member States ensure concrete execution of the 
joint programme,” clarifies Philippe Amouyel. 

One area ready for joint programming
Why were neurodegenerative diseases cho-
sen as the pilot joint programme? “When one 
looks at the levels of funding and the fragmen-
tation of scientific and technological domains 
in Europe and compares them to those of the 
United States, dementia research appears to be 
one of the least funded areas and most frag-
mented in Europe,” explains Philippe Amouyel. 
Moreoever, the prevalence of these illnesses is 
drastically increasing, and during the French 
presidency of the EU in 2008, as the Commis-
sion published its communication on Joint Pro-
gramming, Nicolas Sarkozy decided to make 
the fight against Alzheimer’s disease a national 
priority. 

At this stage, a declaration of intent to launch 
a joint programme was presented in December 
2008. 24 Member States and Associated Coun-
tries have expressed their desire to participate 
and agreed on the main points of the manage-
ment structure and on the decision processes 
to put into place and prepare an ambitious 
strategic research agenda. With the support of 
a high-level international scientific council, one 
of the next steps will consist of defining specif-
ic objectives (SMART objectives). “Once the stra-
tegic agenda and the SMART objectives are 
decided, it will be as though there is a menu 
in front of us. Each participating country will 
be able to choose to work towards objectives 
that correspond best to their competencies, 

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   23
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   23

08/10/09   17:23
08/10/09   17:23

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

23

 
 
 
 
N
R
E
C
©

At CERN, more than 1 000 scientists 
representing 94 institutions and 
28 countries are working on the 
ALICE experiment in which the LHC 
will cause lead ions to collide to recreate 
in the laboratory the conditions that 
prevailed just before the Big Bang. 
The data obtained will make it possible 
to study the development of matter 
from the birth of the universe 
until the present day. 

R
E
T

I

©

k
c
o
t
s
r
e
t
t
u
h
S
©

k
c
o
t
s
r
e
t
t
u
h
S
©

24 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | OCTOBER 2009

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   24
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   24

08/10/09   17:23
08/10/09   17:23

 
 
 
 
 
Making a success 
of integration

The road towards a unified and attractive European Research 
Area (ERA), which guarantees the fifth freedom – the movement 
of researchers, knowledge and technology – is still a long one. 
Seven years since the ERA’s birth in Lisbon, the Commission decided 
to measure the distance covered so far and what remains to be done. 
This lengthy task began in 2007 with the publication of a Green 
Paper on the ERA. This was then followed by a wide-ranging public 
consultation lasting several months. Advances made and delays 
and shortcomings hindering its development were identified 
as well as methods to help overcome them. 
What is the outcome of their labour? The relaunch of the ERA kicked 
off in spring 2008 in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia. It has already 
produced the ‘Vision 2020’ for the ERA, adopted by the EU. In parallel, 
the EU launched five initiatives in key areas: careers and researcher 
mobility, research infrastructure, knowledge transfer between public 
research and industry, joint planning and international cooperation. 
The task is a huge one, but the ERA’s future depends on it.

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   25
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   25

08/10/09   17:23
08/10/09   17:23

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

25

 
ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Universities 
in question(s)

Prime movers in research and the transmission 
of knowledge, universities have for centuries been 
jewels in the crown and the pride of European countries. 
In recent years a new impetus has come from the EU, 
in consultation with all stakeholders, to expand their 
autonomy, optimize their diversity and, with new resources, 
mainstream them into the knowledge economy.    

W ith around 4 000 higher edu-

cation institutions and 435 000 
researchers,  these  hives  of 
activity in which around one 
and a half million people work are what are 
known collectively as European universities. 
This immense web of dissemination, transfer 
and production of scientific knowledge is part 
of the close – and often historically charged – 
links that every European nation maintains with 
its’ academic system. Not that Europe’s academ-
ic world lives ‘with the windows shut. Every 
country, according its capacities, has faculties, 
laboratories and research centres which are at 
once rooted in its own culture and open to the 
world, often with international reputations. But 
in the contemporary context, dominated by the 

simultaneous advent of globalisation and the 
knowledge society, EU states have sized up the 
changes their university systems need to make, 
at the time when their cost is reaching the limit 
of public spending capacity. 

Growing challenges
On the level of teaching, universities face 
the double challenge of growing masses of stu-
dents to educate and new calls for qualifica-
tions from employment markets. On the level 
of research, many indicators show European 
university systems to be, in general, less effi-
cient in terms of innovation and symbiosis with 
the business world (and therefore economic 
effects, growth and employment) than their 
American or Japanese competitors. 

Awareness of the need for a Europe-wide 
vision of these challenges has grown consid-
erably over the last two decades. A fundamen-
tal step was taken in 1999 with the Bologna 
Declaration, initiating a process of harmonis-
ing the validation and recognition of university 
degrees. The EU’s Erasmus programme has 
also given a powerful impetus to cross-border 
student mobility.  

But it is equally the role and place of univer-
sities as major players in research – employing 
about one third of researchers and providing 
80 % of basic research in Europe – which are 
the subject of a vast process of critical thinking. 
Certainly, the foremost unifying element in aca-
demic research has been and continues to be 
its active involvement in the Commission’s 

26 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   26
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   26

08/10/09   17:23
08/10/09   17:23

Proud of their traditions and the 
national heritage they represent, 
universities (here Oxford, UK) know 
that they need to reform and open up 
to the outside world. But without 
losing their souls.

having a much more political vision of the 
common strengths and weaknesses of Europe’s 
university  systems.  Together  with  Member 
States and the higher education sector, the 
Commission has sought to articulate a joint 
project of modernising universities around their 
three core missions: teaching, research and 
contributing to innovation. Defined in 2006 (1), 
the main directions focus on diversification, 
maximising existing excellence, a greater push 
for student, teaching staff and researcher mobi-
lity, and strengthening universities’ ties with 
business and with the expectations of society.

This approach has shaken up the historical 
way that universities operate. The mould in 
which most have developed, often over centu-
ries, has been to provide a wide range of ver-
tical curriculum courses covering the full range 
of academic learning, under the financial and 
programming supervision of their national or 
regional governments. But seen on a continen-
tal scale, the diversity of academic teaching and 
research programmes conceals a lack of true 
diversification  based  on  specialisation  and 
excellence. And in many cases, the vertical 
hierarchy of disciplines also masks the lack of 
linkages and bridges between them.

An essential autonomy
To get things moving – and moving they are 
everywhere in Europe, though not without 
crises, as recently in Greek and French univer-
sities – a broad consensus exists on the need 
for universities to be given genuine autonomy, 
with greater responsibility, to enable them to 
fully initiate policies of excellence and encou-
rage their communities to adopt a culture of 
results and social contracting. The Commission 
stresses the need “for new internal governance 
systems based on the adoption of real scien-
tific policies supported by strategic and proac-
tive management of their human and financial 
resources.” Adding that “while preserving the 
public nature of their mission and their wider 
social and cultural responsibilities, European 
universities need to assert their role as eco-
nomic actors, able to respond better and faster 
to market demand and develop partnerships 
for the exploitation of scientific and technolog-
ical knowledge.”

By placing university reform and moderni-
sation on its overall strategy agenda, the EU is 
filling a glaring gap by asserting its determina-

k
c
o
t
s
r
e
t
t
u
h
S
©

framework programmes. In one capacity or 
another, almost all universities on the continent 
are participating in, and partially funded by, 
numerous European projects in all areas of 
applied or fundamental research.  They are also 
leading players in the Marie Curie programmes 
for the mobility of researchers, which have 
allowed tens of thousands of researchers to 
conduct doctoral or post doctoral research 
across Europe. 

A new political vision
But it was from 2000 onwards, with the 
announced objective of creating a European 
Research Area (ERA) as a cornerstone of the 
new strategy for growth and employment – the 
so-called Lisbon strategy – that the EU began 

ACADEMIC RESEARCH

tion to evolve towards a knowledge economy, 
of  which  higher  education  and  university 
research should be the leading protagonists. 
The sharing of experiences – both successful 
and problematic – serves to map out guide-
lines for future developments.

Research ≠ innovation
There are no magic ‘turnkey’ solutions. This 
applies also to the much-vaunted link between 
universities and innovation – a recurrent theme 
that has dominated most of the reports and 
recommendations  produced  over  the  past 
20 years. As two experts in the Knowledge for 
Growth (2) research group point out, “public 
policymakers and university officials need to 
avoid confusing research and new inventions 
with innovation.” For Paul David and Stan Met-
calfe (3), university research can and must obvi-
ously be a major source for innovation. But they 
question the role with which universities have 
tended to be saddled by being pushed to create 
start-ups and other spin-offs, and manage patent 
portfolios, on a model imported from the USA, 
where this trend is also now being called into 
question.

While much is made of such success stories, 
Professors  David  and  Metcalfe  insist  that, 
despite calls for universities to come closer to 
business companies, their job is not to take 
over their role. For them this is a wrong path, 
which undermines universities’ fundamental 
mission to extend the areas of knowledge and 
to exchange innovative knowledge on an open 
basis with the world of entrepreneurship.

“In the long term, the necessary reform of 
universities has to lead to a division of labour 
across the entire research system, with a clear 
recognition that different models of university 
modernity are possible”, they argue. “It is not 
possible to shape universities’ interaction with 
the  business  world  in  one  one-size-fits-all 
mould.” 

Didier Buysse

(1)  “Delivering the modernisation agenda for universities: 

Education, research and innovation”, COM (2006) 208 final.

(2)  ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/monitoring/

(3)  Professors at Stanford University (US) and Oxford University 

knowledge_en.htm

(UK) respectively.

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   27
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   27

08/10/09   17:24
08/10/09   17:24

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

27

 
 
 
NETWORKING THE ERA

More effective together

Being at the forefront 
of innovation and competi-
tiveness: a goal Europe can 
achieve only through effective 
collaboration. 

If there is one area where it is important 

– and fortunately possible – to move for-
ward  together,  it  is  that  of  scientific 
research: to confront competition, but 
also  to  avoid  wasting  energy  and  research 
funding. By competition, we are referring in 
particular to the US and China. “Currently, only 
10-15 %  of  European  programmes  allow 
researchers from other countries to participate, 
while most American programmes are open to 
the world. If Europe were to draw inspiration 

from how the latter country operates, it could 
become the number two in global research,” 
was how an enthusiastic DG Research official 
recently described the situation. The idea is to 
coordinate projects where working in harness 
would make Europe more efficient. The task is 
far from easy, but the number of initiatives is 
rapidly growing. The framework programmes, 
the ERA-NET activities and initiatives under Arti-
cle 169 of the Treaty establishing the European 
Union are examples that clearly reflect this com-
mitment to European unity. 

The Framework Programmes
The  Framework  Programmes  (FPs)  for 
research and development are financial instru-
ments that serve to implement EU policy in 
science and technology. Research topics for 
funding are selected by a management commit-
tee composed of representatives of Member 
States and Associated Countries, based on pro-
posals from researchers in the sector, consulted 

by the Commission. The Cooperation part of 
the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) is 
divided  into  10  thematic  areas,  including 
health,  nanoscience  and  biotechno logy,  to 
name but a few. The key conditions for a project 
to be chosen by the committee of independent 
experts responsible for the selection is that it 
must involve researchers from at least three 
Member States or Associated Countries. 

ERA-NET initiatives
Each Member State has its own system of 
research funding. The idea of the ERA-NETs is 
to encourage collaboration between regional 
and national research programmes in order to 
pursue common objectives. This time it is the 
national programme managers in each country, 
that is to say mainly funding bodies, who decide 
the themes and tasks to be undertaken jointly. 
On the ground, this involves exchanging infor-
mation on each country’s areas of activity and 
sharing databases, leading eventually to joint 

28 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   28
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   28

08/10/09   17:24
08/10/09   17:24

calls. The national programme managers have 
enough  cards  in  their  hands  to  decide  to 
launch a collaboration once they have reached 
agreement,  without  necessarily  waiting  for 
external funding. Where countries fund their 
projects themselves, the EU picks up the tab 
for coordination, training and the management 
activities of the consortium. 

Article 169 initiatives
Every activity the EU undertakes needs to 
have a legal basis. The Framework Programme, 
for example, is covered by Articles 166 and 167 
of the EU Treaty. Article 169, in turn, allows 
Member States and the Commission to co-
finance major initiatives of scientific interest. 
This  involves  integrating  entire  national 
research programmes in terms of management, 
finance and calls. The research areas are deter-
mined by the Council and the European Par-
liament,  based  on  proposals  from  the 
Commission. An initial Article 169 initiative was 
launched under FP6 in the field of poverty 
rela ted diseases in developing countries. Four 
new initiatives are already planned for FP7, 
among them the AAL (Ambient Assisted Living) 
project, which seeks to use information techno-
logy and communication to improve seniors’ 
quality of life. 

The benefits of such cooperation…
One of the major findings is that it works: 
collaboration between researchers from various 
European countries has actually increased. This 
is being felt by researchers themselves who, 
thanks to European projects, have access to 
more funding sources than before. In addition, 
national programme managers have empha-
sised in a recent report that ERA-NETs had 
proven very interesting for small countries that 
tend to specialise strongly in certain areas. 
“ERA-NETs are also relevant for highly specific 
subjects – like rare diseases – that are too broad 
to be addressed at national level, but remain too 
small to interest the research community”, adds 
Véronique Halloin, a chemist and Secretary-
General of the Belgian Fonds National pour la 
Recherche Scientifique (FNRS). 

For Véronique de Halleux, a researcher at 
the  polymers  laboratory  of  the  Université 
Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) involved in the One-
P (Organic Nanomaterials for Electronics and 
Photonics) project, which brings together 200 
researchers from 10 countries, the initiative is 
an undoubted success. “Being able to work 
with researchers from several European coun-
tries is a significant asset, allowing us to work 
with the best specialists. We could never have 
got this project up and running without it.” 

NETWORKING THE ERA

Her statement is echoed by colleague Jean-
Louis Deneubourg, researcher and head of the 
Social Ecology Unit, which is taking part in 
the  MADE  (Mitigating  adverse  ecological 
impacts of open ocean fisheries) project. He 
too praises “the complementing of knowledge 
that European projects allow,” adding that: 
“Without these European initiatives I’d have 
to close my lab.” 

… and its sticking points
The mechanics of the ERA-NETs are well 
established.What is also essential is political 
buy-in from the start. In an effort to improve 
this aspect of European collaboration, the con-
cept of joint programming has been developed. 
This new approach aims to involve European 
ministers ex ante in decision making and to 
join forces in research on major societal chal-
lenges like Europe’s ageing population, climate 
change and the financial crisis.  

The 32 European Research Councils, which 
together form the EUROHORCs group, complain 
bitterly of a lack of funding for researchers to 
travel. Researchers have access to bursaries; their 
families do not. Many scientists therefore stop 
travelling once they have a family. 

National programme managers, in turn, have 
pinpointed details that need to be improved 
and have already planned measures to offset 
the flaws in the European initiatives. The ERA-
NET Learning Platform will facilitate exchanges 
between research coordinators and the sharing 
of information for researchers on a common 
portal (NETWATCH). Identification of best prac-
tices for calls for proposals is also provided. 
Finally, Véronique Halloin raises the question of 
‘virtual common purses’ in the ERA-NETs. “Cur-
rently, there is no real common purse,” she 
explains. Each country keeps its money for 
itself  and  redistributes  it  among  selected 
researchers in its own country. This means that 
if one country has crucial scientists for three of 
the best projects but can fund only one, the 
other two projects may not be carried out at all. 
Having researchers from many countries 
working together is far from easy. Not only 
does it require the EU to improve collaboration 
between its research programmes, but these ini-
tiatives call for constant and rigorous assess-
ment. This is a process that will require time 
to mature. But Rome was not built in a day. 

Élise Dubuisson

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

29

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   29
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   29

08/10/09   17:24
08/10/09   17:24

 
INFRASTRUCTURES

Sanctuaries 
of research

Several of the 44 projects identified by ESFRI as 
priority research infrastructures belong to long-
recognised centres of excellence like ESO (photo 1). 
Others represent new initiatives (photos 2, 3, 4).

In the race for global excellence, 
the European Research Area needs 
to develop infrastructures that 
can match the challenges ahead. 
The roadmap of the European 
Strategy Forum on Research 
Infrastructures consists of 44 selected 
projects. The start of a long story…

1  The E-ELT telescope, scheduled to 
go into operation in 2018, will bring a new 
dimension to cosmology, measuring the 
properties of the first stars and galaxies and 
providing new information on the nature 
of matter and dark energy. Above, segments 
of the telescope’s mirror assembled in 
the laboratory at Garching (DE).

O
S
E
©

Like other initiatives in the process of 

relaunching the European Research 
Area (ERA) (1), Research Infrastruc-
tures aims to establish a lasting partner-
ship between Member States and key research 
players: universities, research bodies, instrument 
suppliers and users. If it is to build further on 
its existing excellence in research, the EU needs 
both to optimise existing facilities and to build 
new infrastructures, with large-scale projects like 
observatories, databases, radiation sources and 
communications networks.

The only way to fund the ever more costly 
and complex infrastructures required for world-

class research is for a number of countries to 
join forces and pool financial resources.  

It is in this context that the European Strategy 
Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) (2) 
was created in 2002 with the primary objective 
of identifying priorities for research infrastruc-
tures (RIs) at the EU level.

RIs can be at only one location, networked 

(distributed) or even virtual.

In 2006, ESFRI established a strategic road-
map of 35 priority pan-European infrastructures 
for taking forward science and innovation in 
Europe over the next 20 years. After an initial 
revision in 2008 to reflect the rapid changes in 

technological and scientific needs, this roadmap 
now includes 44 projects. If and when imple-
mented, these RIs will give the ERA a high 
standard of excellence in physics, environmen-
tal sciences, energy, biomedical sciences and 
information and communication technology.

Collaboration: a necessity
How do these new infrastructures foster col-
laboration between researchers in the ERA, as 
compared to other national institutions? For 
Norbert Kroo, Vice-President of the Hungarian 
Academy of Sciences and a member of the 
European  Research  Council,  we  need  to 

30 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   30
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   30

08/10/09   17:24
08/10/09   17:24

 
INFRASTRUCTURES

4  The Icos project 
is dedicated to 
understanding the 
mechanisms of the 
carbon cycle and green-
house gas emissions. 
Here measurements 
being taken in Russia’s 
Fyodoroskoye forest.

v
e
h
c
a
g
o
S

j

e
r
d
n
A
©

s
i
l

a
e
r
o
B
a
r
o
r
u
A
©

R
E
P
H
©

i

2  The icebreaker Aurora Borealis 
is a scientific platform for multidisciplinary 
research in polar regions.

3  HiPER (High Power Laser Energy Research) 
is a pilot project focusing on energy production 
based on laser-driven fusion technology. Feasibility 
should be demonstrated between 2010 and 2012.

rephrase the question: “Since the middle of the 
last century, it has become clear that in certain 
areas of science, research instruments have 
become too expensive for individual countries 
to go it alone. The solution lies in international 
projects  between  national  institutions  and 
governments. The European Centre for Nucle-
ar Research (CERN) and the European Space 
Agency (ESA) are two examples. The purpose 
of these institutions was not so much to encou-
rage collaboration as to make research possible 
at all: collaboration was a tool, not the goal.”

Norbert Kroo continues: “The development 
of science requires even larger and more costly 
instruments, which call for collaboration on 
a massive and even at times planetary scale, 
like  the  ITER (3)  prototype  thermonuclear 
fusion reactor. These facts were recognised by 
the Union when creating the ERA and estab-
lishing joint actions. In 2007 the Commission 
adopted the Green Paper on new perspectives 
for the ERA. In 2008 the Expert Group on RIs 
published a report (4) focusing on research pri-
ority setting, funding pan-European infrastruc-
tures, the need for a specific legal framework, 
forms of management and ‘e-infrastructures’.” 
Michel Van der Rest, Director-General of the 
SOLEIL  synchrotron  and  president  of  the 
ERF (5)  (European  Association  of  National 
Research Facilities open to international access) 
adds: “Among very large infrastructures, photon 
or neutron radiation sources occupy a particular 
place. Surrounding the source, which is the 
most costly part of the installation (synchrotron 
ring, nuclear reactor, spalliation source, free-
electron laser) are a whole range of experi-

mental stations where samples of matter are 
analysed in all their forms and for all scientific 
interests.”

For him, “the existence of several national 
and international sources side by side repre-
sents a shared source of scientific potential to 
the  extent  that  access  is  open  to  all  ERA 
researchers. Each beam line station is also 
optimised for one particular type of analysis, 
making it relatively unique. This access to a wide 
range of sources and experimental stations is 
a valuable asset that needs to be shared at 
European level. It is not so much an infrastruc-
ture’s national or international nature as its 
international opening and its complementarity 
with other infrastructures that bring researchers 
from every country and discipline to gather 
there to explore samples of material in an attempt 
to understand their physical nature, chemical 
reactivity and biological structure, as well as the 
history of our planet.”

This new framework provides a legal per-
sonality that is recognised by all Member States. 
The new legislation should strengthen the ERA, 
increase the attractiveness of European research 
at international level, and also open the way to 
third country participation. To qualify for ERIC 
status, an RI must have partners from at least 
three Member States. It may also include third 
countries,  Associated  Countries  and  inter-
governmental organisations. Beatrix Vierkorn-
Rudolph welcomes the agreement: “Negotiations 
between the various partners working to estab-
lish new RIs will be considerably facilitated. 
With ‘ERICs’ recognised as international orga-
nisations, VAT exemptions can be obtained. 
Internal organisation will also be facilitated. 
The first RIs on the roadmap are taking shape 
as ERICs. I am eager to see how this new legal 
instrument will operate in practice.” I will keep 
research*eu posted.  

Isabelle Noirot

Bespoke legal format 
A major difficulty in setting up new RIs with-
in the EU has been the lack of an adequate legal 
framework for establishing partnerships which 
involve organisations from several countries. 
National legislations do not always provide 
appropriate legal formats for these new infra-
structures. Following the recommendations of 
a  working  group  led  by  Beatrix  Vierkorn-
Rudolph, Vice-Chair of ESFRI, a Community 
legal framework for European Research Infra-
structure Consortia (ERICs) was adopted in 
June 2009. This opens the way for developing 
a European policy on RIs. 

(1)  Other initiatives include researcher careers and mobility, 
knowledge sharing, joint planning and international 
cooperation in science and technology.

(2)  cordis.europa.eu/esfri/ The 2008 roadmap can be 

downloaded on: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/esfri/docs/
esfri_roadmap_update_2008.pdf

(3) www.iter.org
(4)  Report EUR 23320 EN 2008: “Developing World-class 
Infrastructures for the European Research Area”.

(5)  www.europeanresearchfacilities.eu

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   31
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   31

08/10/09   17:24
08/10/09   17:24

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

31

 
 
 
 
 
 
MOBILITY

After the free circulation of 
persons, goods, services and 
capital, the European Union 
is now insisting on a fifth 
freedom, the free circulation 
of knowledge. At the heart 
of this freedom is the mobility 
of researchers to establish 
collaborative projects and 
networks essential to their 
professional development.

The researcher’s 
backpack

k
c
o
t
s
r
e
t
t
u
h
S
©

“The EU is doing everything it can 

to encourage the mobility of 
researchers within its borders 
and to provide them with bet-
ter career structures,” explains Stefaan Hermans, 
Head of Unit at the Directorate-General for 
Research of the European Commission. But it 
remains difficult for researchers (male or female) 
to be constantly moving. The pressure to regu-
larly establish new contracts and the natural ten-
dency to establish geographic roots or family 
ties results in a number of researchers leaving  
their fields of endeavour, jaded by what seems 
to be a requirement for never-ending mobility.
A scientist may also be attracted by better 
employment  conditions  outside  of  the  EU. 
While the EU actually produces more science 
and engineering graduates, as well as more 
doctoral students, than the United States or 
Japan, EU researchers represent a lesser propor-
tion of the active workforce in comparison to 
these two countries.  To avoid the individual 
researcher from ending his/her career prema-
turely – and thus representing a loss in terms of 
educational investment – the EU must provide 
career support and promote his/her mobility. 
This involves ensuring decent and fair recruit-
ment opportunities, attractive employment and 
working conditions, in addition to social secu-
rity benefits and a pension throughout the 
course of an itinerant career.

The fifth freedom

The free circulation of persons, goods, services and 

capital are the Four Freedoms laid down in the Treaty 
of  Rome  in  1957.  However,  in  light  of  economic 
developments and knowledge gains, Commissioner for 
Research Janez Potočnik affirms that Europe now needs 
a fifth freedom – that of the free circulation of knowledge, 
as called for by Member States and the EU, to facilitate the 
mobility of students, researchers and professors, and thereby 
improve EU competitiveness through innovation. In practical 
terms, it is a question of increasing human resources in S&T, 
implementing reforms in higher education, promoting the 
penetration of the “web economy” and improving interactions 
between public research institutions and industry.

32 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   32
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   32

08/10/09   17:24
08/10/09   17:24

 
MOBILITY

Recruitment
In order to be attractive, the researcher’s 
mobility  must  be  a  flexible  and  coherent 
process, a step towards a permanent post. In 
an  effort  to  achieve  this,  the  Commission 
adopted the European Charter for Researchers 
and Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of 
Researchers in 2005. “The goal is to ensure 
equal treatment of researchers and to improve 
the transparency of the recruitment process”, 
explains Stefaan Hermans. “Around one thou-
sand institutions have already signed the Char-
ter and Code”. And yet, many university and 
research centre job offers are only advertised 
internally. Moreover, academic institutions often 
prefer to recruit locally, whereas the private sec-
tor tends to be more open to competition.

As a result, researchers spend a dispropor-
tionate amount of time each year trying to find 
a new contract or funding and unnecessary 
costs are incurred by both the job seeker and 
the institution that eventually employs him or 
her. The Fifth Freedom thus becomes nothing 
more than the freedom to advance… in murky 
waters. All of a sudden, the European area 
might appear somewhat small, whereas other 
destinations, such as the United States, or even 
China, begin to look all the more tempting. 

In order to ensure improved access to pub-
lic sector vacancies – and therefore help the 
EU prevent a “brain drain” – the Member States 
and the EC created the Euraxess site. The site 
includes a list of numerous doctoral and post-
doctoral vacancies, as well as available EU 
funding.  It  also  provides  researchers  and 
employers with information on their respective 
rights. Additionally, Euraxess service centres are 
available all over Europe, designed to assist 
researchers and their families with their transfers.   

Conditions of employment
Another important aspect of a researcher’s 
career is his/her conditions of employment, 
which are not always attractive. Hence, young 
scientists often move from one short-term con-
tract for a specific project to the next and are 
left with the impression of being sent from one 
place to another with no opportunity for real 
recognition, and they’re lucky if not faced with 
periods of unemployment between contracts. 
Such circumstances obviously delay the secur-
ing of a stable position in which the research-
er’s talents could be more beneficial to the EU, 

i.e., long-term project management, knowledge 
transmission and many other ‘high value-add-
ed’ roles that cannot be carried out within the 
scope of short-term contracts.

Many talented young researchers thus end 
up leaving research for different sectors of the 
economy, such as consultancy work, where they 
find stability, responsibility and a more attrac-
tive salary. Others stay on the research track, 
and by the age of 35 or 40 attain a permanent 
post that allows them to finally express their 
full potential. But, they need to remain com-
petitive by cultivating networks established ear-
lier in their career. This is a difficult task because 
a permanent post equates to reduced mobility. 
To obviate this obstacle, there are possibilities 
for researchers to work in foreign institutions 
while keeping their home posts. For example, 
“In France, it is possible to continue to be paid 
by your laboratory while on loan to another,” 
explains Philippe Thébault, reader at the Paris 
Observatory. But in reality, such practices are 
rarely encouraged. “It is also possible to find 
funding independently or even to take unpaid 
leave of absence, but the latter option clearly 
interrupts career advancement. And in nume-
rous institutions, promotion depends on senior-
ity rather than performance. Indeed, it is difficult 
to be mobile without one’s career suffering.”

The research world also cannot ignore that 
it is difficult for women to remain mobile if 
they choose to have children. A choice must 
often be made. “The policy debate on this sub-
ject was very limited ten years ago,” admits 
Stefaan Hermans. “But things have changed 
considerably. In May 2009, a large ‘Women and 
Science’ conference was held in Prague. Dis-
cussions focused on the best practices adopt-
ed in different European countries and third 
country institutions to make careers in science 
more accessible to women. The text of the 
European Partnership for Researchers, adopted 
in 2008, also calls on Member States to ensure 
the equitable distribution of funds and posts 
among men and women.”

Social security and pension
Finally, a career as a researcher also requires 
consideration of social security benefits and 
a pension, two rights that are generally diffi-
cult to fuse with occupational mobility. Indeed, 
researchers are subject to the different social 
systems of those countries in which they work. 

Here the EU is also making great efforts to 
harmonise systems. However, in practice, when 
a researcher moves from one country to anoth-
er because of a contract change, s/he will gen-
erally have limited knowledge of his/her rights. 
“In some countries, there are many different 
kinds of employment contracts,” explains a post-
doctoral researcher in Belgium. “In gene ral, 
foreigners find themselves offered lower sala-
ries and less favourable social rights. Or, par-
ticularly  if  you  are  not  in  command  of  the 
language and know little about the country’s 
legal system, you may find yourself getting 
tricked when signing the employment contract.”
As regards supplementary pension schemes, 
researchers will often hesitate to make contri-
butions to a pension scheme in a country in 
which they will only be working for two or 
three years. How can they really be sure that, 
having reached retirement age in a country in 
which they have set up, it will be possible to 
benefit from rights acquired in others? “With 
the European Partnership for Researchers, the 
Commission initiated a study to determine who 
would be legally, technically and financially 
responsible for the creation of a pan-European 
pension  fund  responsive  to  the  needs  of 
researchers,” explains Stefaan Hermans. The 
European  Molecular  Biology  Organization 
(EMBO) took a first step in that direction with 
the introduction of a new pension plan that will 
be available to all post-doctoral researchers who 
are beneficiaries of an EMBO fellowship as of 
1 January 2010. Contributors are thus able to 
continue in the pension plan as they move 
from country to country.

The professional stability of researchers in 
Europe remains fragile. Essentially forced to be 
mobile at the beginning of his or her career, the 
researcher initially finds him or herself in search 
of greater stability and yet, after landing a per-
manent post, the search for mobility starts again, 
since the researcher’s competitiveness depends 
on it. So, in fact, does the competitiveness of 
Europe. 

Stéphane Fay

   Euraxess
 ec.europa.eu/euraxess/
Fifth Freedom
euobserver.com/9/25838

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

33

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   33
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   33

08/10/09   17:24
08/10/09   17:24

 
 
 
 
 
 
KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

Transforming the results of research into an innovative 
product involves a long commercial, legal and social 
process which extends beyond the realm of science. 
In Old Europe, where industry and academia have 
developed independently of one another, it is a particularly 
complex phenomenon. The EU is aware of the problem 
and has consequently made improving knowledge transfer 
one of the six priorities of the European Research Area 
Vision 2020 (EEA).

Europe produces more science and 

engineering  graduates  than  any-
where else. It has the highest propor-
tion  of  scientific  publications  per 
capita in the world, and in just a few years has 
become  the  champion  of  public  access  to 
research results. However, if one judges by the 
number of patent submissions, it is the United 
States that is at the head of the pack. Despite 
consistent growth over the last 15 years, pub-
licly funded R&D institutions are responsible 
for less than 10 % of patents filed in the EU. 
And less than one in ten innovative firms count 
them among their main partners (1). It is there-
fore time to discuss an entirely different type 
of  European  leadership  –  under-exploited 
knowledge.

A lasting partnership – 

instructions for use

The Clear-Up project, funded by the Seventh 
Framework Programme, is a perfect example 
of the EU’s vision of ‘open innovation’. The 
project represents all of the links in the inno-
vation chain – universities, industry actors and 
even a property developer. They come togeth-
er to achieve a goal that is one and the same: 
the enhanced energy performance of existing 
buildings. Future works will run the gamut 

34 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

from essential research in nanotechnology to 
full-scale testing in a hotel in southern Spain.

mobility must also be encouraged, as well as 
that of doctoral researchers,” she adds.

Udo Weimar, researcher at the Institute of 
Physical and Theoretical Chemistry at the Uni-
versity of Tübingen (DE), dedicates half his time 
to the coordination of research consortiums. 
“A distinction should first be made between 
pre-existing knowledge and knowledge pro-
duced  by  research.  If  only  one  member  is 
responsible for a discovery, s/he files a patent 
in his/her name. Otherwise, all of the partners 
involved file it together. As for the others, they 
can capitalise on this knowledge free of charge 
for the four year duration of the project. They 
will then have to negotiate a new agreement.” 

Defining shared agendas
Despite initiatives, such as the European 
Technology Platforms or the R&D network, 
Eureka, which facilitate the coordination of 
research initiatives, Clear-up constitutes yet 
another  exception  in  today’s  European 
Research Area (ERA). Nonetheless, the era of 
researchers working alone in their laboratories 
is over, according to Marja Makarow, CEO of 
the European Science Foundation (ESF), the 
representative association of research institu-
tions. “We are aware that we must respond to 
industrial  needs.  Inter-sectoral  researcher 

To  promote  exchange  and  innovation, 
Europe has also established the European Insti-
tute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), the 
first European initiative which will fully inte-
grate the three sides of the ‘Knowledge Triangle’ 
– Higher Education, Research, Business Inno-
vation – to form ‘Knowledge and Innovation 
Communities’ dedicated to common thematic 
areas. The first of these should be established 
in 2010. 

More enterprising universities
In April 2008, the Commission communicat-
ed a series of recommendations to Member 
States, calling on them to render knowledge 
transfer policies a strategic mission of univer-
sities. The Commission also published a Code 
of Practice as guidance for these institutions.  
While all concerned may not yet have received 
the Code, the distribution process appears to 
be well underway.

A good number of universities handle mat-
ters, such as the selection of discoveries worth 
protecting, identification of good partners in 
industry and the most appropriate form of 
innovation-exploitation, in a rather empirical 
manner. Bruno van Pottelsberghe, Advisor to 

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   34
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   34

08/10/09   17:24
08/10/09   17:24

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

“At ULB, when a patent is filed with the 
European Patent Office, but there are no direct 
market  opportunities  through  exploitation 
rights or the creation of a spin-off, we let the 
patent fall into the public domain, otherwise it 
would be much too expensive to process,” 
laments Bruno van Pottelberghe.

Andrew Dearing is Secretary General of the 
European  Industrial  Research  Management 
Association and was part of the expert group 
charged with analysing the results of the Green 
Paper on the ERA in 2007. According to him, 
the entire legal, economic and regulatory sys-

tem requires reform. “It is often said that there 
is less venture capital in Europe. I am, however, 
more inclined to believe that it is the prospect 
of returns on investment that are considerably 
more limited here. And the number of start-ups 
which go global is much higher in the United 
States. This has nothing to do with the quality 
of the research, but rather the conditions in 
which the businesses operate.” The major chal-
lenge facing the European Research Area is the 
need to expand beyond its scientific core, in 
order to avoid a “blackout”.  

Laurence Buelens

(1)  “A more research-intensive and integrated European 

Research Area - Science, Technology and Competitiveness 
key figures report 2008/2009”, report published by the 
Commission

(2)  “Lost Property: the European patent system and why it 

doesn’t work”, Bruegel blueprint vol. IX, Brussels, 2009. 

the Rector and President of the Université Libre 
de Bruxelles (ULB) for technology transfer 
issues, prefers to see the glass as half full on 
this issue. “Many universities have established 
very competent knowledge transfer offices, 
whose work cannot be compared to that car-
ried out ten years ago. At ULB, for example, 
we file between 25 and 35 patents per year. 
On the other hand, I notice that some busi-
nesses are having difficulty adapting because, 
in the past, they could ‘contain’ the benefits of 
technology  transfers  far  more  easily,  by 
employing professors as consultants or filing 
the patents themselves.”

A start-up, and then?
A serious structural barrier further explains 
our comparatively limited capacity to “extract 
gold” from science – the absence of a unique 
European patent. The European Patent Office 
(EPO) is charged with examining and granting 
patents. These patents are then registered in the 
various countries requested, against renewal 
fees and translation costs. In Europe, a patent 
therefore costs from 3 to 10 times more than in 
the United States. Given that intellectual pro-
perty laws change from one country to the 
next, the disputes are numerous.

   Clear-up
 21 partners – 11 countries (BE-CH-CZ-
DE-DK-ES-FR-GR-HU-IT-SE)
www.clear-up.eu
 Commission website on intellectual 
property and technology transfer
 ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/policy/
ipr_en.htm

“No such thing as a European technology market”

Here are two questions for Bruno van Pottelsberghe, Associate Researcher at the BRUEGEL 

think tank in Brussels and author of a study on the dysfunctions of the patent system in 
Europe (2). 

What are the main problems caused by the current situation?
Costs, legal uncertainty and levels of complexity are all too high. Current patent policy favours 
the granting of monopolies. In Europe, the situation resembles Swiss cheese, since a patent will very 
rarely be filed in all countries. The average is six, but many SMEs limit themselves to two or three, 
due to a lack of funds. This already limits their prospects of internationalisation.  In fact, there is no 
such thing as a European technology market.

The idea of a Community patent dates back to 1962. After an agreement by the Competi-
tiveness Council on a ‘common policy approach’ in 2003, Ministers still cannot agree on the 
means of implementation. How can this stalemate be explained?

A number of actors would lose certain sources of revenue with the introduction of a Community 
patent. The current system provokes numerous disputes and generates considerable revenue for 
patent lawyers and advisors. Translators also benefit considerably from the process. National patent 
offices would also lose revenue from renewal fees if there were only one port of entry. These offices 
advise and influence the political powers that be and the attachment of certain countries to their 
language – such as Spain, which demands that Spanish be an official language of the European patent 
system – is at times exploited by certain actors for less honourable reasons. In my mind, a European 
leader will need to sweeten this pill.

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

35

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   35
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   35

08/10/09   17:24
08/10/09   17:24

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Will the European Research Area one day 
open its borders? In any event, it is aspiring 
to have an international dimension. 
The creation of a new partnership between 
Member States and the Commission and 
the creation of the SFIC, the Strategic Forum 
for International Cooperation, in late 2008 
is evidence of this.

Iter, a symbol of 
long-term, multi-continental 

cooperation excellence. Its flag 
flaps in the breeze on 27 May 2009, 

planted in the exact spot where excavation 
work will begin this year on the enclosure 
for the Tokamak magnet. 

Where are the frontiers   o
The European Research Area (ERA) is 

first and foremost European. But it 
is also open to the world, with Inter-
national scientific and technological 
cooperation  as  one  of  its  basic  missions. 
Europe can do many things alone, but to make 
further scientific progress, tackle global chal-
lenges and attract the best researchers, collabo-
rations with scientists around the world are 
more necessary than ever before. In the words 
of European Commissioner for Research Janez 
Potocˇnik: “Global challenges call for global 
responses.”

International cooperation is for real! 
Cooperation  in  science  and  technology 
(S&T) is of course nothing new, as evidenced 
by the number of S&T professionals in Europe 
coming from outside Europe, which has almost 
doubled since 2000, and the constant increase, 
over the past 15 years, in the number of pub-
lications co-signed by these same scientists. 
The number of joint-patents is also following 
the same trend. Besides research topics usually 

36 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

open to international cooperation (health, food 
and biotechnology, new information and com-
munication  technologies,  nanotechnology, 
energy, environment, transportation, human 
and social sciences, space and security), new 
global issues like climate change, infectious 
diseases and population aging are emerging. 
These are of interest to the scientific commu-
nity well beyond the borders of Europe.

If international cooperation in science and 
technology already exists between Europe and 
many countries, all is far from perfect. The stra-
tegic imperatives, on which everyone is agreed, 
are limited by serious obstacles. In particular 
the multiplicity of public players and a wide 
variety of research priorities are enough to dis-
courage even the most determined of prospec-
tive international partners.

A necessary strategic framework
We are not talking here of creating a global 
research area. Strengthening the international 
dimension of European research is not intended 
to replace existing international cooperation 

mechanisms, as enshrined both in the frame-
work programmes and in Member States’ bila-
teral cooperation programmes. Nor are we 
talking of fresh project funding. The concern 
rather is to find the most appropriate ways to 
benefit from international cooperation, avoid 
duplication of funding and effort, and react as 
single rather than as separate entities. 

In September 2008, the Commission pro-
posed to Member States to partner with it in 
a new European strategic framework for inter-
national cooperation in science and technology. 
“Member States and the European Commission 
are involved in a whole range of research acti-
vities with third countries. The lack of a com-
mon  strategy  at  European  level  has  led  to 
duplication, resulting in a loss of impact and 
effectiveness of research,” it pointed out to 
motivate its initiative. In a series of recommen-
dations adopted in December 2008, the Coun-
cil backed the need for such a partnership.

Thus was born the SFIC (Strategic Forum for 
International Cooperation). SFIC is a specific 
configuration of CREST (Scientific and Techni-

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   36
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   36

08/10/09   17:24
08/10/09   17:24

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

The SFIC’s missions

R
E
T

I

©

  Sharing and structuring information on the science and technology (S&T) 
activities and objectives of the various partners.
  Pooling knowledge about third countries, in particular analysis of their S&T 
capabilities. 
  Ensuring regular consultation between the partners in order to identify 
their respective objectives and common priorities in terms of S&T cooperation 
with third countries (“what and with whom?”).
  Coordinating activities of a similar nature implemented by Member States 
and the EU.
  Proposing initiatives to be implemented with appropriate ways and means.
  Networking of Member States’ and the Commission’s scientific advisors 
in key third countries.

 of research?

cal Research Committee), the consultative body 
which assists the Council and Commission with 
the  implementation  of  EU  research  pro-
grammes. Chaired by a Member State on a two-
year  rotating  basis  (currently,  until  2010, 
Germany, repre sen ted by Volker Rieke, Deputy 
Director-General for European and Internation-
al  Cooperation,  Ministry  of  Education  and 
Research), the SFIC is a direct response to the 
invitation by the Council to Member States and 
the Commission to better coordinate their sci-
entific and technological cooperation with oth-
er  regions  of  the  world  and  make  it  more 
effective. The goal is to pinpoint opportunities 
and obstacles to cooperation between EU and 
third countries. Another objective is to create 
ways to interact with them to identify priorities 
and actions.

Two key questions
How can information-sharing be improved? 
How can cooperation priorities for Europe be 
identified, both in terms of particular countries 
and particular themes? With an initial meeting 

in February 2009, a second in May and others 
to follow in October and December, the SFIC 
has set a tight schedule of consultations and 
exchanges to develop responses to these two 
strategic questions. Defining a general model 
would be too easy, as major differences exist 
in the ways of understanding the many research 
topics and in cooperation with various regions 
of the world. For example, research in the 
framework of ITER calls for equipment mainly 
concentrated on a single site, while research 
into global warming will necessarily require 
geographically more dispersed instrumenta-
tion. Similarly, cooperation with developing 
countries calls for a different approach than 
that with industrialised countries.

Giving the ERA an international dimension 
is set to be a long process. Work has just start-
ed and the different groups are advancing in 
parallel. Right now, the SFIC’s primary aim is 
to better understand the various channels of 
international cooperation, particularly in terms 
of mechanisms and instruments used by Mem-
ber States and the European Community. This 

will open the way to more vigorous European 
partnerships, a more dynamic strategic frame-
work and more obvious added value. 

The goal of the partnership and the strategic 
framework is, in the words of Commissioner 
Potocˇnik, “to engage with our Member States 
to transform the maze of European research 
into a European Research Area open to the 
world, which attracts the best minds and con-
tributes to addressing global challenges.”  

Clara Delpas

   International Cooperation 
for lasting solutions
 ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

37

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   37
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   37

08/10/09   17:24
08/10/09   17:24

 
 
 
 
Testing the Herschel telescope 
at ESA’s ESTEC site (NL). Orbiting the 
Earth at a height of 1.5 million km 
and fitted with a 3.5 metre primary 
mirror – the biggest ever launched 
into space – Herschel detects light 
rays in the extreme ultra-red 
spectrum and the submillimetric 
regions that do not penetrate to 
terrestrial telescopes due to the 
atmospheric layer. It thereby 
opens up a new unexplored field 
to astrophysicists. 

A
S
E
©

38 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   38
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   38

08/10/09   17:24
08/10/09   17:24

 
Horizon 2020

From financial crisis to climate change, emerging diseases to the threat that 
human activities pose to ecosystems, the list of challenges Europe faces is long. 
As the Eurobarometers that regularly take the pulse of public opinion have 
shown, Europeans rely on scientific research to meet them!
Is this asking too much of research? To affirm its position and maintain its 
attractiveness and competitiveness, Europe needs to establish itself as 
a fully-fledged participant in the production of knowledge. This has to be 
underpinned by excellence. Optimizing the functioning of European research, 
managing funds to best advantage and prioritizing research topics play an 
essential role here. This is where the ‘Forward Looking Activities’ (FLA) come in, 

t
e
u
g
a
R
t
r
e
b
u
H
/
e
u
q
è
h
t
o
t
o
h
P
S
R
N
C
©

e
c
i
m
A
n
a
w
r
E
/
e
u
q
è
h
t
o
t
o
h
P
S
R
N
C
©

A
R
N

I

©

with their aim of developing shared visions of the future. Which are the areas 
in which the Old Continent can and must excel in the next 10-20 years?   
Health, agriculture and the environment, 3 of the 10 priority themes of 
the specific ‘Cooperation’ programme of the Seventh Framework Programme, 
are prime candidates.

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   39
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   39

08/10/09   17:24
08/10/09   17:24

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

39

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTERVIEW

Shaping the European rese

The Commission, committed to help Member States better 
coordinate their research efforts, organised a seminar on 
2 June on forward-looking activities which underpin future 
European research policy. Experts, representatives of the 
public sector and directors of DG Research attempted to 
identify the needs in this field. Anneli Pauli is the Deputy 
Director-General of DG Research. She reflects on the 
seminar and future forward-looking activities. 

Why are forward-looking activities so 

important in your opinion for the development 
of the European Research Area (ERA)? 

The financial crisis and its various economic 
and social consequences, and well as environ-
mental  and  demographic  problems  that  lie 
ahead,  call  into  question  our  production, 
consumer, living, travel, health, and other habits. 
We need a long-term perspective which inte-
grates our current thought processes and creates 
new approaches. We have to create a more 
sustai nable future. The development of the ERA 
is part of the response to this challenge. What 
is good for all of Europe will be, sooner or later, 
good for Member States. This way of thinking 
necessitates a paradigm shift and change of 
mindset for everyone.

The forward thinking has existed for a long 
time, but a new wave of activity is taking over. 
These activities combine three dimensions: an 
abundance of information produced by experts, 
involvement of stakeholders (researchers, com-
panies, NGOs, public organisations) and the 
involvement of relevant politicians so they use 
the results in the creation of policies. 

The creation of the ERA with Member States, 
Associated Countries and the European Insti-
tutions encourages everyone to share their 
visions on future social, economic or environ-
mental challenges. Several of these challenges 
– the transition to a carbon neutral society, 
immigration or poverty, for example, are trans-

national, even global, and thus common for 
everyone. 

How do you evaluate the capacities 

of Europe in this field? 

Many European countries conduct forward-
thinking activities. The UK is one of the expe-
rienced. The British government has developed 
a culture focused on the future in each ministry. 
And the Chief Scientist to the Prime Ministers is 
responsible for a prospective, cross-cutting pro-
gramme  focused  on  a  specific  number  of 
themes. In Finland, the technology and inno-
vation funding organisation Tekes introduced 
a continuous cycle of participatory prospects 
which it added to is strategic reflection process. 
Together, involved parties (business, research 
institutes and other organisations) establish an 
overview of the country’s strategic options. 

There are still more interesting European 
examples: the Foresight programme in Sweden, 
Futuris,  AGORA 2020  and  France 2025  in 
France, Research 2015 in Denmark and Fore-
sight Process started by the German research 
minister. 

These initiatives range from activities focused 
on technology and conducted by experts to 
activities more social in focus with a greater par-
ticipation of involved parties. The objectives of 
these initiatives also vary from the identifica-
tion of strategic technology important for busi-
nesses to more general questions on the role 

40 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

of government and the institutional and social 
conditions of socio-economic change.

What type of action is necessary on the 
European level to complete national activities? 

On the European level, we have created 
transnational networks between those who 
finance and those who participate in these for-
ward-looking activities, initiated mutual learn-
ing  processes  between  Member  States  and 
regions and expanded upon future vision for 
European research policy (on the subject of the 
convergence process ‘nano-bio-info-cogno’ for 
example). We have also supported the develop-
ment of tools and the implementation of a sys-
tem to follow up on forward-looking activities 
(European Foresight Monitoring Network). In 
addition, certain “thematic” programmes inte-
grated in research framework programmes sup-
port forward-looking projects in their field. This 
year, the Commission also published a report 
called “The world in 2025”.

However, today, there still is not a system-
atic and participative approach to forward-
looking activities. But the consensus is growing 
around the idea that the creation of a coherent 
European research and innovation policy must 
quickly involve more systematic, efficient and 
long-term cooperation. We absolutely need to 
share our visionary knowledge bases and also 
establish  proactive  research  policies  at  the 
European, national and regional levels. 

These scenarios and visions developed jointly 
will select the problems and challenges able to 
be addressed as part of common programmes 
and initiatives. European research policy needs 
to be based on the most systematic, continuous, 
forward-looking, pan-European activities. It is 
particularly important so that Member States 
and Associated Countries can combine their 
research efforts through ‘joint programming.’ 
The sharing of such upstream activities could 
facilitate, in the future, the identification of 
many needs and weak signals, in order to cre-
ate a community of views allowing for the iden-
tification of programme priorities and to quickly 
agree upon them.  

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   40
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   40

08/10/09   17:24
08/10/09   17:24

INTERVIEW

esearch of tomorrow

We  must  also  integrate  an  international 
dimension in our future scenarios. First by 
looking to understand how the main Euro pean 
partners and competitors envision the future 
and how this vision shapes their research and 
innovation policies. The pan-European vision 
must fit into the global context. 

What type of forward-look process do you prefer? 
Many believe that the EU tries to promote 
a single way to envision the future and sup-
port decision making. However, in my eyes, 
coherence is not harmonisation dictated from 
above, but a means for everyone to have access 
to the knowledge of others, sharing views and 
networking. A pan-European process must cre-
ate a link between different forward-facing 
national activities. It would be flexible, even 
“modular”, and would not be bureaucratic. 
Such a process, and the national systems impli-
cated, must be interoperable in order to author-
ise joint work. But they need to create visions 
with pertinence and an added pan-European 
value, and not simply provide a summary of 
national visions. It will not simply be finding 
the lowest common denominator. 

Diversity is necessary for me. We need dif-
ferent perspectives and multiple visions of the 
future of our health systems, for example, and 
what this signifies in terms of research priorities. 
But starting to share information, assembling 
it and making it accessible to everyone, could 
already form the base of the forward-looking 
European process founded on the needs that 
I outlined above. 

How do you organise cooperation 

at the European level?  

During the seminar, the six research projects 
on forward-looking activities funded by the 
socio-economic and humanities programme of 
the Seventh Framework Programme were pre-
sented. They aim to use the prospect to align 
research with the Commission’s needs in the 
long-term by interconnecting the knowledge 
to  identify  problems  sooner,  analysing  the 
emerging  innovation  models  or  the  future 

impacts of security and defence policies, and 
in examining the questions posed by emerg-
ing science and technology and the points of 
view of citizens on science, technology and 
innovation. These projects will be grouped in 
a way to develop synergies between them. 

Also there is the example of the Standing 
Committee on Agriculture Research (SCAR), 
who  launched  a  forward-looking  exercise 
aimed at developing possible scenarios for 
European agriculture, within the global con-
text, over the next 20 years. This will serve as 
a base for defining agriculture research priori-
ties in Europe in the medium- and long-term. 
SCAR also developed a mechanism for moni-
toring  and  foresight  to  send  alerts  about 
emerging problems at regular intervals. SCAR’s 
reports have been used in the drafting of the 
Communication “Towards a common strategy 
for a European agenda for agricultural research 
(2008)”.

Is there a link with the Lund declaration? 
Yes, there is a clear link with the Lund decla-
ration (1) which stipulates, “The identification 
of major challenges must involve the relevant 
stakeholders, including European institutions, 
business, public sector, NGOs and the scientific 
community, and foresee the interaction with 
international partners.” 

In my opinion, the identification of these 
major challenges requires a systematic and 
continuous forward-looking process, based on 
close interaction between forward-thinking 
researchers and experts on one hand and rele-
vant stakeholders and responsible politicians 
on the other. It is the only way to insure that 
forward-looking activities will be effectively 
used to guide research policy strategic choices 
(this includes joint programming). In other 
words,  they  are  based  on  informed  and 
evidence-based  decision  making.  All  while 
keeping a global perspective. 

So the key word is “need” and it requires 
the implication of users at the first stage. The 
relevant politicians and stakeholders must work 
with researchers, and vice-versa, to improve 

the impact of their forward-looking studies. 
Citizens also need the opportunity to participate. 
We need a new culture of forward-thinking. The 
process is as important as the product itself!

We must concentrate on transversal questions 
with many view points that those in charge 
exploit.  We  must  envision  the  creation  of 
a  European  platform  for  forward-looking 
activity that analyses future challenges, either 
technological or social. Most major social chal-
lenges contain elements of both.

We need involvement of the relevant politi-
cians and stakeholders to shape a better future 
together, to guide Europe to opportunities, and 
not only react to problems once they are already 
there.  

(1)  The Lund Declaration (SE), adopted 9 July 2009 at the 

“New Worlds – New solutions” conference stipulates that 
the EU must identify the major challenges for which public 
and private research need to develop sustainable solutions. 

   Results of the seminar of 2 June 
2009 on forward-looking activities 
 ec.europa.eu/research/era/
events-01_en.html

Anneli Pauli, 
Deputy Director-
General of DG Research 
explains the main 
principle guiding 
forward-looking 
activities promoted 
by Europe.

n
o
i
s
s
i

m
m
o
C
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E
©

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

41

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   41
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   41

08/10/09   17:24
08/10/09   17:24

 
 
 
 
 
ENVIRONMENT

A package of 
measures

The industrial revolution led to a loss of natural habitats, 
deforestation and an increase in the concentration of 
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The result was climate 
change and loss of biodiversity. To reverse this trend, 
the entire European Research Area must be mobilised.

Faced with a rising world population, 

growing industrialisation and dwind-
ling supplies of fossil fuels, it is inevi-
table that our way of life will change. 
In April 2009, in line with its obligations under 
the Kyoto protocol, which ends in 2012, the 
Council of the European Union (EU) adopted 
the energy/climate package of the European 
Commission (EC). The measures are ambitious, 
and rightly so! The environmental consequences 
of climate change are making themselves felt 
and there is a growing problem with securing 
energy supplies (1).

The EU-wide commitments for 2020 consist 
of a 20 % reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions compared with 1990 levels – or even 
30 % if an international agreement is reached 
– and a 20 % increase in the use of renewable 
energy (electricity, heating, cooling, transport), 
which currently accounts for only 8.5 %. These 
targets are weighted to ensure a fair distribu-
tion of effort among the various Member States. 
In  addition,  each  Member  State  is  being 
encouraged to raise the proportion of biofuels 
in transport to 10 % between now and 2020, 
in compliance with environmental criteria for 
sustainable  development  and  biodiversity 
protection.

Practical implementation
“The European emission reduction target is 
achievable, provided that we commit the neces-
sary resources,” says Philippe Mathieu, professor 
of energy production at the University of Liege 
(BE), and a member of the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “The four 
tools for reducing GHG emissions are energy 
efficiency, renewables, nuclear energy and CO2 
capture/storage. As CO2 capture/storage will 
not be ready by 2020, we are left with the first 
three to achieve a 20 % reduction by the 2020 
deadline. Nuclear fission is an important part 
of the current landscape but does not provide 
a long-term solution because uranium is a non-
renewable resource that poses a waste storage 
problem. We must therefore focus our efforts 
on making the energy system more efficient in 
terms of production, distribution and consump-
tion, coupled with the massive introduction of 
renewable energy.”

The  priority  sectors  for  intervention  are 
those that emit the largest quantities of CO2: 
industry, transport and housing. In terms of 
transport, rail must be given a more prominent 
role and we need to rethink road transport. 
Solutions already exist and have been imple-
mented in some countries: such as urban tolls 

42 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

for cars in Singapore and London, Oslo and 
Stockholm  or  Switzerland’s  road/rail  ‘fer-
routage’ system designed to reduce pollution 
and free up the roads.

“We also need to devise other solutions, 
such as encouraging car sharing, improving 
public transport and the rail system and pro-
moting the use of less polluting power units, 
such as hybrid engines in the short term and 
fuel cell-powered electric engines in the much 
longer term,” explains Philippe Mathieu. In the 
construction  sector,  the  top  priority  is  to 
improve insulation in housing and major infra-
structure, prior to installing facilities fuelled by 
renewable energy. “In Belgium, most of the 
houses built before 1960 have a similar level 
of insulation to houses built in a hot country 
like Greece! We also need to ban the use of 
heating oil and natural gas for hot water pro-
duction and heating as soon as possible, and 
to promote the use of thermal solar panels, 
wood-fired heating and possibly geothermal 
energy.”

Finally, we need to raise individual aware-
ness so that we all think about the hidden CO2 
produced by everyday activities and consumer 
products. For instance, eating local foodstuffs 
in season contributes significantly to reducing 
CO2 (2).  In  sum,  the  cleanest  and  cheapest 
energy of all is the energy we do not consume.

Renewable energy
Conventional forms of energy (coal, oil, nat-
ural gas and uranium) are running out and, in 
the end, we will have no choice: energy sourc-
es will need to be 100 % renewable. “The goal 
of 20 % by 2020 is achievable at European level 
if the techniques are geared to the type of ener-
gy resources available in each country: solar 
energy in southern Europe and wind energy in 
countries with wind-power potential (Germany, 
Spain, the Netherlands, Scandinavia),” says 
Philippe Mathieu. We need to resolve problems 
with the intermittent availability and dispersal 
of renewables such as wind and solar energy, 
which are climate-led rather than demand-led. 
Further research is also needed to improve 
conversion efficiency, reduce costs and store 
energy. Distribution networks will have to be 
designed  to  suit  decentralised  production. 
Energy storage installations also need to be set 
up, such as the potential energy in waterfalls, 
electrochemical energy in batteries, calorific 

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   42
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   42

08/10/09   17:24
08/10/09   17:24

ENVIRONMENT

Greening the economy

Switching to a low carbon economy creates new oppor-

tunities in terms of technological innovation. In 2007, 
the EC drew up a strategic plan for energy technolo-
gies called the SET plan(4), designed to speed up the devel-
opment  and  deployment  of  cost-effective  low  carbon 
technologies. Under the European Economic Recovery Plan, 
the EC also set up three public-private partnerships in 2008: 
Green Cars, Energy-efficient Buildings, and Factories of the 
Future(5). The targeted sectors account for a quarter of all 
jobs in the EU and are also earmarked for priority action to 
ensure a greener future.

energy in water, or even carbon-free hydrogen 
production.

As  for  biofuels,  the  first  generation  has 
revealed their limitations. “Using biofuels that 
compete with food, or that require prior defo-
restation and subsequent exportation, makes 
no sense,” adds Philippe Mathieu. Strict crite-
ria are therefore needed to ensure that the 
resources used for biofuels are both renewable 
and sustainable.

Are the measures sufficient?
Compared with other major GHG emitters, 
the EU is currently an environmental leader. 
In the United States, the Waxman-Markey bill, 
approved by the House of Representatives in 
June 2009 (3), proposes a 17 % reduction in 
domestic GHG emissions between now and 
2020 compared with the reference year (2005), 
which is significantly less stringent than the tar-
gets set by the EU (1990). “Russia and Japan 
have proposed reductions of around 10 % com-
pared with 1990 levels,” points out Andreas 
Löschel,  head  of  the  Environmental  and 
Resource Economics, Environmental Manage-
ment  Department  at  Germany’s  Centre  for 
European Economic Research (ZEW), adding 
that more restrictive international measures will 
undoubtedly be required to curb the effects of 
climate change. The IPCC is recommending 
cuts of 25 % to 40 % in greenhouse gas emis-
sions by 2020, compared with 1990 levels. To 
be continued… at the UN climate summit in 
Copenhagen in December 2009. 

Isabelle Noirot

(1)  See the April 2008 research*eu special issue: Energy 

– Extracting ourselves from oil.

(2)  IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri even recommends 

vegetarianism because livestock-rearing is a major source 
of greenhouse gases.

(3)  The bill must still be passed by the Senate and approved 
by President Obama. www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.
xpd?bill=h111-2454

(4)  ec.europa.eu/energy/technology/set_plan/set_plan_en.htm
(5)  ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/lists/

list_114_en.html. The calls for projects can be seen on the 
CORDIS web site (cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/): Green Cars 
(GC), Energy-efficient Buildings (Eeb) and Factories of 
the Future (FoF).

System for measuring CO2 flows in 
the open air. The infrared gas analyser 
is housed in a black box insulated 
from sediment by an aluminium 
casing. This equipment is used by 
researchers working on the PACOBA 
project, aimed at enhancing scientific 
knowledge about the Arguin Bank 
Bay region in Mauritania, in particular 
to improve environmental and 
fisheries management.

e
c
i
m
A
n
a
w
r
E
/
e
u
q
è
h
t
o
t
o
h
P
S
R
N
C
©

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

43

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   43
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   43

08/10/09   17:24
08/10/09   17:24

 
 
 
 
AGRICULTURE

Rethinking 
agricultural research

Water, a precious 
and rare commodity, 
is used abundantly for 
certain types of crops 
such as corn. 

European agriculture emits too much greenhouse gas, 
consumes too much fossil fuel and uses up natural resources 
faster than they can be renewed. Intensive production 
methods based on petrochemicals and mechanisation 
have reached their limits. It is time to reform the system. 
After many years of being relegated to the wings, European 
agricultural research is once again centre-stage. 

“It is now unlikely that global warming 

will be only 2°C by 2050”, we read 
at the beginning of the final report 
of the Standing Committee on Agri-
cultural  Research  (SCAR),  an  organisation 
established by the Commission European to set 
priorities for agricultural research. And while 
there is no consensus on how Europe’s climate 
will change, overall trends are pointing to major 
changes  in  agriculture. “In  Europe,  we  are 
expecting mean temperatures to rise fastest in 
the north of the continent. Temperatures and 
rainfall will be more variable”, explains agro-
nomist and economist Michel Griffon, Deputy 
Director of France’s Agence nationale de la 
recherché (ANR). “Certain regions, particularly 
in the south, will suffer water shortages, while 
in the north, particularly in Scandinavia and 
the Baltic states, it will be possible to increase 
crop yields.” 

Adapting production methods to the new 
climate conditions is the key issue of agricul-
tural research in Europe, but not the only one. 
Global warming will also be accompanied by 
energy shortages. Intensive agriculture, the 
model on which European agriculture is built, 
is  based  on  large-scale  mechanisation  and 
chemical inputs manufactured from fossil fuels. 
“This dependence affects not just the production 

of food, but also its processing, preservation, 
packaging and transporting”, says Gianluca 
Brunori, an agronomist at the University of Pisa 
(IT) who chaired the expert group which pro-
duced the SCAR’s latest outlook report. 

To top it all, agriculture depletes ecosystems. 
The use of chemical inputs is leading to many 
problems of water pollution and soil depletion. 
In  southern  Europe,  where  crops  depend 
heavily on irrigation, groundwater is being 
pumped out faster than it is being renewed. 
Everywhere, specialisation is reducing bio-
diversity. 

A new research system
Global  warming,  the  energy  crisis  and 
depleting natural resources. How do we han-
dle these multifaceted challenges? “In order to 
simultaneously combat and adapt to climate 
change, we must move from an oil-based agri-
culture to one based on the resources of the 
ecosystem”, says Gianluca Brunori. Referred to 
as agro-ecology, eco-agriculture, ecologically 
intensive agriculture or conservation agricul-
ture, this approach consists of taking advantage 
of the natural properties of the environment. 
Integrated  biological  control,  for  example, 
combats insect pests by encouraging the emer-
gence of natural predators. Soil conservation 

A
R
N

I

©

44 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   44
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   44

08/10/09   17:25
08/10/09   17:25

 
AGRICULTURE

A
R
N

I

©

technologies rely on natural biological pro-
cesses to increase soil fertility. 

Developing such methods calls for extensive 
research to understand the multiple inter actions 
that govern ecosystems. In recent decades, 
however,  Member  States  have  significantly 
reduced agricultural research budgets. The 
upshot  is  that  while  Europe  has  excellent 
research capabilities, these are usually in the 
hands of industry. “European public research 
has abandoned whole areas of knowledge, 
especially in soil ecology and in insect-parasite-
plants interaction”, says Michel Griffon. “What 
led to this situation was the idea that agricul-
ture is no longer an area of major innovation 
for the future. Biotech would solve all agricul-
ture’s problems.”

For  Gianluca  Brunori,  European  public 
research in agricultural science must be com-
pletely rethought to meet the challenges of 
tomorrow. “Disinterested scientific advice is in 
short supply in Europe. It is imperative that 
Member States reinvest in agriculture in order 
to develop future strategies. Currently, the R&D 
system  focuses  on  the  short  term,  without 
calling into question the model of intensive 
agriculture that is causing most of the prob-
lems. To overcome this situation, policy on 
research, education and technical advice to 
farmers  needs  to  differentiate  more  clearly 
between public and private interests. We must 
also harness the expertise of farmers in research 
because they know better than anyone else the 
specificities of the situation on the ground.”

Encouraging local involvement
The selection of projects for EU funding 
appears to have taken account of the need to 
invest in understanding agro-ecosystems. “Our 
overall strategy is to explore as many different 
technologies  as  possible.  In  this  way  each 
branch of science can contribute to establishing 
a  new  agricultural  system”,  says  Hans-Jörg 
Lutzeyer, scientific administrator in the Agricul-
ture, Forests, Fisheries, Aquaculture unit of 
the Directorate-General for Research of the 
Commission. “The largest share of the Seventh 
Framework Programme’s agricultural research 
budget focuses on developing new production 
systems that are less energy-intensive and bet-
ter integrated into the ecosystem. The rest goes 
on food quality and biotechnology (1).” Michel 
Griffon is in favour of the new EU guidelines 

on  agricultural  research,  but  believes  that 
improvements still need to be made. “Everything 
is moving very fast. What seemed adequate two 
years back is now seen as lacking ambition.”

Besides scientific research, Europe has yet 
to act politically. For Michel Griffon, “the big 
European environmental directives, like those 
on  biodiversity,  water  and  soil  need  to  be 
rethought to give Member States and regions 
greater freedom to define the best systems for 
their farms and their environment, in consul-
tation with their farmers”. 

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the 
driving force behind the generalisation of inten-
sive agriculture in Europe, also needs to be 
reformed in order to meet the new challenges. 
Originally, CAP subsidies were calculated based 
on production. This fostered the emergence of 
the large farms that we know today, widespread 
farm mechanisation and the use of chemical 
inputs. Since then the CAP has evolved. There 
are now two pillars: the first dedicated to sup-
porting markets and agricultural prices, the 
second relating to rural development. 

“While the first pillar is managed at Euro-
pean level, the second gives greater autonomy 
to  Member  States,  which  can  support  and 
co-finance those agricultural sectors they con-
sider socially or environmentally important,” 
says Hans-Jörg Lutzeyer. This second pillar can, 
in particular, enable farmers to obtain subsi-
dies related to the environmental services they 
can render. These services have no value on 
the food market, and need therefore to be sub-
sidised if one wants to implant an ecologically 
viable form of production.  

The major part of the CAP budget is still 
concentrated on the first pillar, but reform is 
planned for 2013. Hopefully, European leaders 
will opt for a better balance between economic 
competitiveness and environmental sustainabi-
lity. “A transfer of funds from the first to the 
second  pillar  would  be  very  timely”,  says 
Gianluca Brunori, “as it would allow us to pro-
vide subsidies to encourage particular agricul-
tural practices and services. But for this we must 
have sound knowledge systems and locally 
available training capabilities. 

Julie Van Rossom

(1)  Sustainable agriculture EUR 71.5 million – Food quality EUR 

59.95 million – Biotechnology EUR 59.95 million.

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

45

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   45
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   45

08/10/09   17:25
08/10/09   17:25

 
 
HEALTH

Putting innovation 
into practice

Promoting collaboration between researchers and building 
bridges between academic research and the business world 
are not only good ways of promoting innovation, they also 
harness international excellence and make innovation 
available to all Europeans.  

“Bringing the wealth of Euro-

pean science to patients,” is 
how Ruxandra Draghia-Akli, 
Director of the Health Direc-
torate  at  the  European  Commission’s  DG 
Research, sums up Europe’s ambitions in the 
field. To achieve this aim, it is promoting col-
laboration between researchers to develop 
much larger-scale research efforts than would be 
possible for individual countries. Such united 
efforts are much more visible and influential to 
the boards managing international programmes. 
One example is the ICG (International Cancer 
Genome Consortium), which aims to sequence 
the genomes of cancerous tumour cells.

Type A flu virus. Enlargement x 117 000. 
Colourised image.

r
u
e
t
s
a
P
t
u
t
i
t
s
n

I

©

46 

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009

“Europe was largely absent from human 
genome sequencing but is now taking its right-
ful place in the genomics sector,” says Jacques 
Remacle, Scientific Officer at the European 
Commission.  In  early  2010,  two  European 
research projects, each with a budget of EUR 
10.5 million, will start work on the genetic 
mapping of breast tumours (BASIS project) and 
kidney tumours (CAGEKID project). “European 
programmes enable countries to get organised 
by providing not only funding but also very 
advanced technological infrastructure,” he adds. 

A public-private partnership
The creation of new medicines is also one 
of the priorities of the EU’s Seventh Framework 
Programme for Research and Technological 
Development (FP7). “In the early 1990s, 18 out 
of 20 medicines put on the market came from 
Europe. By the year 2000, this figure had fallen 
to 2 out of 20,” says Ruxandra Draghia-Akli 
ruefully. To boost biomedical innovation in 
Europe,  a  novel  public-private  partnership 
between the Commission and the pharmaceu-
tical industry was set up in 2007, entitled the 
Innovative Medicines Imitative (IMI). “The aim 
of the IMI is not to develop new medicines, 
but to improve their development,” explains 
Irène Norstedt, Head of Sector for IMI imple-
mentation at the Commission. “To do this, we 
need to find a method for the early identifica-

tion of medicines that will fail during the later 
trial phase.”

The drug-development process, from dis-
covery of the molecule through to final clinical 
trials, takes an average of 12 years, at a cost of 
EUR 800 million. The problem is that their 
potential secondary effects and efficacy are not 
known  until  the  last  stage  of  this  process. 
“If there is a problem, development has to stop, 
which  represents  an  enormous  waste  and 
a huge disappointment for patients,” she adds. 
The IMI concept is simple: if pharmaceutical 
companies agree to share information on their 
various failures, there will be fewer such failures, 
saving both time and money. This would allow 
more medicines to be developed – creating 
a circle that we all hope will be virtuous. 

SMEs support innovation
The Commission has reaffirmed the key role 
of SMEs beyond their involvement in industry. 
Indeed, FP7 has a 15 % target figure for SME 
participation in research programmes. “These 
small businesses are real incubators that enable 
us to determine whether academic innovations 
can be exploited on an industrial scale,” says 
Ruxandra Draghia-Akli.

One successful example is Viennese com-
pany AVUR Green Hills Biotechnology, which 
Europe funded in 2003 to develop a new flu 
vaccine. The manufacturing process, based on 

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   46
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   46

08/10/09   17:25
08/10/09   17:25

 
 
HEALTH

t
e
u
g
a
R
t
r
e
b
u
H
/
e
u
q
è
h
t
o
t
o
h
P
S
R
N
C
©

Incubation of nanomedicines with 
cancerous mouse cells in a culture 
medium. The goal of this research is 
to discover a new remedy for cancer.

a reverse genetics method, is much faster than 
traditional methods. This is a significant advan-
tage in the event of a pandemic, when supplies 
must be made available quickly. Better still, this 
innovative vaccine is produced from cell cultures, 
which reduces the risk of allergic reactions, an 
added benefit compared with the traditional 
production method using incubated hens’ eggs. 
This new-generation vaccine is already at the 
clinical trial stage. The new manufacturing 
process is expected to be used for producing 
a quarter of all future vaccines against pandemic 
influenza type A/H1N1 (swine flu). “The tech-

nology, which we have promoted, is now in 
the hands of industry. We are currently looking 
for new fields where advanced technological 
tools could be used,” explains Torbjörn Inge-
masson, who heads several technology transfer 
projects at the Commission.

A Community patent 
The issue of promoting innovation once 
again raises the question of a European Com-
munity Patent. Europe’s current system is based 
on a bundle of national patents, making it 
much more costly than in the United States or 

A rapid response to influenza  

Several programmes have already been implemented to combat flu viruses. They involve 

creating drugs that target areas of the virus that do not mutate over time. Most seasonal or 
type A strains of influenza have developed resistance to Tamiflu®, one of the few effective 
treatments for severe symptoms. According to the European surveillance network VIRGIL (Vigilance 
against viral resistance), a programme that came to an end a few months ago, 70 % of seasonal flu 
strains displayed resistance to Tamiflu® during the winter of 2008. The aim of the FLUINHIBIT 
programme, which commenced in January 2008, is to identify substances that inhibit the inter action 
between two sub-units of an enzyme involved in the replication – and hence multiplication – of the 
virus genetic material.

Another project, PORTFASTFLU, launched at the same time as FLUINHIBIT, is working to develop 
and validate a system for the rapid diagnosis of influenza and for monitoring it during a pandemic. 
The objective is to create a fully automated device capable of identifying, in less than one hour, 
all known forms of influenza, including H5N1 avian influenza and the 2009 pandemic A/H1N1 swine 
flu. In the light of very encouraging preliminary results, this system will start being tested in hospitals 
this December. 

Japan. “One reason why fewer drugs from 
Europe are coming onto the market is the cost 
of patents,” says Ruxandra Draghia-Akli, who 
believes that if we wish to promote innovation, 
we have to make it easier to implement, largely 
by adapting the structures guaranteeing intel-
lectual property rights. 

Marine Cygler

   ICGC (International Cancer Genome 
Consortium)
www.icgc.org
Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
imi.europa.eu
AVIR Green Hills Biotechnology
www.greenhillsbiotech.com
EU Influenza Research
 ec.europa.eu/research/health/influenza
FLUINHIBIT    
 6 partners, 6 countries 
(AT-CH-DE-IT-LT-SE)
www.pikepharma.com/fluinhibit
 PORTFASTFLU
9 partners, 5 countries (BE-FR-IE-UK-ES)
www.portfastflu.com
VIRGIL
www.virgil-net.org/about-virgil

research*eu  SPECIAL ISSUE | NOVEMBER 2009 

47

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   47
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   47

08/10/09   17:25
08/10/09   17:25

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IMAGE OF SCIENCE

K

I

A
H


0
9

S
0
2

E
N


C

o
k
l
i

i

p
o
T
r
t
o
P
/
m
r
e
s
n

I

©

Of mice 
and men

This double image presents part of the inner ear of an adult 
wild mouse (on the right) and of a Krox20 mutant (on the left). 
The Krox20 gene, also known in man as Egr2, is involved in many 
biological processes, including control of bone development. 
The Krox20 mutation results in osteoporosis of the bones 
of the inner ear, apparent in a major reduction in their size. 
Colouration with alizarin.    

research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   48
research_eu_SpecERA_EN_091008.indd   48

08/10/09   17:25
08/10/09   17:25