Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[**Avis juridique important**](../../../editorial/legal_notice.htm)

*|*

# 52001IE0724

**Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "the Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2000) 1973 Science, society and the citizen in Europe"** 
  
*Official Journal C 221 , 07/08/2001 P. 0151 - 0166*

  

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "the Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2000) 1973 'Science, society and the citizen in Europe'"

(2001/C 221/25)

On 30 May 2001 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on "the Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2000) 1973 'Science, society and the citizen in Europe'".

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 2 May 2001. The rapporteur was Mr Wolf.

At its 382nd plenary session on 30 and 31 May 2001 (meeting of 30 May) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 81 votes in favour and one against.

1. Introduction

1.1. Science, society and the citizen is a subject of great importance in social policy terms. Although its opinion-forming process on the issue is not yet complete, the Commission has drawn up a staff Working Paper SEC(2000) 1973. The ESC takes this Working Paper as a welcome opportunity to set out its own range of views on this highly complex matter in an own-initiative opinion and refers frequently to the Commission document.

1.2. Right at the start, the ESC would endorse the following statements by the Commission:

"Science and technology represent one of the forces most clearly reflecting social change ..." and

"The questions arising in this area are among the most complex facing society, owing to their technical nature, the uncertainties surrounding them, the know-how needed to deal with them and their often diffuse nature."

1.3. Given its remit as a European Union body, and the fact that its members are drawn from the various social interest groups within the Member States, the ESC is particularly well placed to deliver a detailed statement of principle on the issues involved.

1.4. The ESC is pleased to note that, in its communication, the Commission has also taken up suggestions made by the ESC in its Opinion(1) on the Communication from the Commission: Towards a European research area. Section 5 of the opinion in question is entitled Research and Society and deals with part of this issue.

1.5. Moreover, the Commission's communication looks at various topical issues that are causing growing concern to individuals and policy-makers alike and are encompassed under the general heading of "Science, society and the citizen":

"- How to implement research policy around the real aims of society and fully involve society in seeing through the research agenda?

- How should we manage risks? What implications arise from adopting the precautionary principle? How can ethical issues and the ethical consequences of technological progress be taken into account, at the same time as the need for freedom of research and access to knowledge?

- What needs to be done in order to underpin the dialogue between science and society, to improve the public's knowledge of science, to increase the interest of the young in scientific careers, and to expand the role and place of women in science and research?"

1.6. Three main groups of issues are concerned here, namely:

- the importance of scientific knowledge, its social impact, how it is perceived and managed;

- reciprocal understanding and communication between citizens, society and scientists and researchers;

- the motivation for young people to undertake scientific training and to embark on careers in research.

1.7. In order to deal in an organised way with the various issues and formulate recommendations, the ESC has divided its opinion into the following sections:

2. The historical process and its outcome

3. The citizen, society and scientific knowledge

4. Society, researchers and research; mutual understanding

5. Scientific education: a sine qua non for a knowledge-based society

6. Research policy and the interests of society

7. Summary and recommendations.

2. The historical process and its outcome

2.1. One of the characteristics - indeed one of the most important - which distinguishes human beings from animals is the urge to seek for answers to basic existential questions and for the laws governing the world and morality.

2.1.1. In antiquity fundamental philosophical and scientific insights were gained and, together with discoveries in the fields of mathematics, logic and geometry, and the ongoing development of new technologies, contributed to the growth of the great civilisations of the age.

2.2. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment gave a new impetus to this process in Europe and set in motion an even more far-reaching cultural and scientific development.

2.2.1. This process arose from a combination of further technical developments and tools (printing, gunpowder, mining, seafaring, watermills and windmills) and trade, the discovery of unknown continents, new social concepts, the gradual discovery of natural laws unknown in previous ages and, linked to that, a demystification of natural phenomena.

2.2.2. The process was accompanied by tensions, wars and social clashes - the result not only of dynastic or power-based interests and conflicts, but also of the radical shake-up of ideas, shifts in economic policy and new technologies changing the world of work.

2.2.3. Discoverers and harbingers of new knowledge were not always well integrated into society; sometimes, in the course of ideological conflicts, they were also persecuted, giving rise to notion of the freedom of science and teaching.

2.3. The natural sciences played a key role in this process. An important feature of the natural sciences and the reason for their success is the empirical scientific method developed in Europe and involving interaction between experimental findings and theoretical interpretation and forecasting.

2.3.1. At the same time the branches of science, which initially were lumped together under the overall heading of philosophy, and in particular the natural sciences and mathematics, established themselves as independent disciplines and through an evolutionary growth process yielded an ever increasing wealth of new and often revolutionary discoveries, which also increasingly became the starting point for modern technology.

2.3.2. However, this unavoidable specialisation of scientific disciplines must not blind us to their common features. Inter-disciplinary approaches are steadily gaining in importance as science probes ever more deeply into the complex realities of our world. This also includes efforts to re-establish closer links between the natural sciences and the humanities.

2.4. Science has steadily encroached on man's mythical view of the world.

2.5. As a result of this process, the living conditions of the peoples and regions involved in this development have changed and improved as never before in human history.

2.5.1. A further key factor was the development and intensive use of energy-consuming (or, more accurately, energy-converting) machinery and industrial processes: energy "nourished" prosperity.

2.5.2. The subsequent technical, medical, cultural, social and political achievements are the basis and defining feature of today's mobile, prosperous information society. In this way, people (in Europe) were largely liberated from the burden of sheer physical work and, thus, a freedom which had previously been available only to a small, privileged stratum of society was enlarged to include today all citizens, offering them precious educational opportunities and facilitating the move towards a knowledge-based society.

2.5.3. The degree of prosperity attained in certain countries or regions - measured by gross national product, employment and other indicators - is clearly related to the current level of research and development. Not just economic competitiveness, but also the cultural and political standing of countries and peoples, are dependent on their scientific and technological performance.

2.6. Human beings have to a large extent learnt to protect themselves from many basic threats such as hunger, cold and disease. They act as - and consider themselves - masters of the earth. Therefore, not only have they acquired the skills needed to attain prosperity, freedom and power, but they have also taken on additional responsibilities.

2.7. As a result of the still-rapid population growth across the world and the impact of mankind's action and way of life on nature and environment, human beings have become a critical determinant of the further development of the planet on which they live. A number of commentators (e.g. Stoppani, Crutzen, Stoermer) have proposed the term "anthropocene" to denote the current period in the history of the world.

2.8. In addition to immanent and non-manmade dangers and (natural) disasters (see also points 2.9 and 3.7.1) such as volcanic eruptions, the ice age, asteroid impact, earthquakes, floods, epidemics etc., new threats are now emerging to the biosphere, where the cause is humans themselves, their way of life and their technology.

2.8.1. Highly developed weapons of mass destruction (NBC weapons), which, if used, would cause unimaginable and possibly global devastation, are a particular case in point.

2.9. It is thus up to Europeans and European society to protect both their own living conditions and the biosphere, to avert dangers and at the same time to secure and enhance prosperity and quality of life and help other nations to do the same. Further research must be carried out into risks emanating from people and their way of life and practical methods and arrangements must be developed to control or avert these risks.

2.10. Both society and the public have recognised that science is a key part of our culture and that Europe's competitiveness is secured through innovation and technical progress. This requires greater input from science and research. Hence, all Member States (albeit to differing degrees) and the European Union make considerable, although not always sufficient, financial resources available for these purposes.

2.10.1. Science, society and citizens have important and difficult decisions to make regarding the scale, distribution and deployment of these resources.

2.10.2. Society, citizens and science must work together constructively to shape the future and establish the knowledge-based society. By virtue of its remit and membership, the ESC has a key role to play in this regard.

3. The citizen, society and scientific knowledge

3.1. One of the features of today's (civil) society is the emergence of formal organisations and structures which reflect citizens' social, professional, ideological or cultural identity and interests.

3.1.1. Scientists are, on the one hand, part of society, but difficulties may arise in communication and mutual understanding - and in clarifying respective responsibilities - because of the distinctive nature of their profession and the impact of their research findings.

3.1.2. The public expects the products of science to secure health, longevity, prosperity (e.g. through innovation), security from danger and quality of life. At the same time, people also have a fear of what they do not know or understand.

3.1.2.1. Moreover, society and the public expect scientists to stick to the rules of their peers, to tell the truth, not to cheat and not to violate accepted ethical values.

3.1.3. However, the public is generally not well enough informed about science and technology, i.e. about latest scientific findings, the opportunities and risks of scientific research, the working methods and operational conditions of science and research and the chances and risks of technologies developed from scientific findings.

3.1.4. On the one hand therefore, the public and society expect a great deal from science - the result both of its revolutionary successes and of promises made by scientists themselves. On the other, the risks and dangers of science and technology, intensified by the excessive and rapidly growing gulf in knowledge between the public and science, may lead to a "remystification" or even demonisation of science and research. These are the two sides of the Commission's propositions outlined below.

3.1.4.1. Inflated and unrealisable expectations can lead to disappointment and scepticism among the public and thus obscure perfectly justified expectations and realistic opportunities.

3.1.4.2. Any "remystification" - or even demonisation - would not only deprive society, citizens and science of any rational basis for communication and assessment, but would also run counter to the very essence of science itself.

3.1.5. The Commission addresses some of these factors in the relationship between science, society and citizens in its Working Paper.

3.2. The Commission Working Paper states: "The relationship between science and society today is something of a paradox. First of all, science and technology are at the heart of the economy and society, and both are having an increasingly positive effect on the lives of people in Europe. Expectations of science and technology are getting higher and higher, and there are few problems facing European society where science and technology are not called upon, one way or another, to provide solutions."

3.2.1. These expectations of citizens are as a result of experience to date. In the last 200 years average per capita real incomes in Europe (i.e. spending on food, clothing, housing, health, education, travel and entertainment) have increased on a scale which would once have been unimaginable. In the last 120 years alone average life expectancy has more than doubled.

3.2.1.1. An education system now open to all citizens and sections of society has developed to such an extent that the average age at which Europeans now enter into employment is the same as the average life expectancy of 400 years ago. The EU Member States have democratic governments. Legal certainty, social protection and personal freedom have reached unprecedented levels.

3.2.2. Since the current view is that both the scope for further growth - and the availability of resources - are finite, people's expectations of future developments are concentrated more on qualitative improvements, on safeguarding what has already been achieved, on risk control and on sustainable technologies. That said, wholly unexpected discoveries and knowledge could well open up new, cross-border options and outlooks.

3.2.3. Research and development sow the seeds of future innovation, prosperity and peace.

3.2.4. And yet there is insufficient public awareness of the importance and extent of this progress and of the conditions for it. This awareness is often overlaid with disillusionment arising from the failure of unrealistic expectations to materialise and with fear of real or imagined dangers resulting or potentially resulting from the technical application of scientific findings.

3.2.5. The ESC therefore recommends that schools (see also point 5) give greater emphasis to the developments described in point 2.5 ff. to foster public awareness of common European cultural achievements - and thus of the historic importance of the European research area. Armed with this knowledge, Europeans will also be able to develop a more balanced relationship between society, citizens and science.

3.3. However, the Commission Working Paper also states: "Conversely, advances in knowledge and technology are greeted with growing scepticism, even to the point of hostility, and the quest for knowledge no longer generates the unquestioning enthusiasm that it did some decades ago. Searching questions are being asked of the social and ethical impact of the forward march of knowledge and technology and the conditions under which the basic choices are made (or are not made) in this area."

3.3.1. Although the ESC feels that the above statement is no longer generally true - and it does not seem to square with the call for a knowledge-based society and economy - it nonetheless reflects the feelings of a significant section of society. A closer look shows that there are many reasons for this attitude.

3.4. The first of these is the obvious fact - trivial in itself - that as a tool or instrument, properly used, becomes increasingly effective (and here we are talking about particularly effective technologies and procedures which build on scientific discovery), so it also becomes capable of doing increasing damage in the event of accident or deliberate misuse. The proper use and the abuse of scientific discoveries are two sides of the same coin (see also point 3.4.5).

3.4.1. Should mankind therefore be denied the scope to develop highly effective technologies and methods because justified concerns exist as to their destructive potential or as to man's ability to control them if wrongly used? In other words, should we or could we prevent the discovery of natural laws because they can be used to develop ultra-powerful technologies.

3.4.2. Ultimately the question is whether mankind and society have the ability and the strength to lay down standards for the responsible use of their own research methods and results, to update these in the light of new discoveries and to ensure that they are complied with.

3.4.3. Given that extraordinarily effective procedures and technologies have already been discovered and developed and that these could potentially be used for destructive purposes, we are faced with the serious problem and the extremely important task of continuing in the future to develop social, political and - increasingly - global supervisory arrangements which enable us, on the one hand, to exploit opportunities to improve health, the economy and individual development, but at the same time to reduce and contain the possibly disastrous consequences.

3.4.4. The basic right of scientific freedom is enshrined in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Thus it can be constrained only by other fundamental rights such as the right to dignity of the person, life and physical integrity (see also point 3.7).

3.4.5. It is an illusion to believe that an "improved" research policy would allow only research carried out with "good intentions", thus excluding from the outset any potential for damage or destructive use.

3.5. The ESC therefore supports the Commission's intention to launch a European-level debate on the issues addressed in points 3.2 and 3.3 above and to develop the appropriate instruments for this purpose. Thus, it endorses the following statements made in the Commission Working Paper:

3.5.1. "Dealing with technological risk and 'science/society' more generally calls for the development of new forms of dialogue between researchers, experts, political decision-makers, industrialists and members of the public, especially at European level" and

3.5.2. "Such real or imagined threats also have to be put into perspective and balanced against the benefits that science and technology bring to society in general, and to each individual in particular."

3.5.3. The ESC stresses its obligation and intention to play a major part in this debate as a European Union body. The fact that its members have different fields of expertise and different backgrounds of experience also ensures that, within the ESC, balanced account can be taken of society's diverse views.

3.5.4. The ESC would point out that, for a debate of this kind to be effective and successful, a number key conditions must be met when selecting and dealing with scientific experts to be consulted as part of the process. Among other things, experts should have:

- sound expertise, proven and maintained by continual involvement in active research;

- the freedom to express their views;

- the (broadest possible) external and internal independence;

- the ability to express themselves in a clear and readily understandable way.

3.6. A particular problem is also posed by public anxieties with little objective justification (when related to the latest scientific findings known at the time) which are nourished by ignorance, misunderstanding and the lack of sufficient information for an informed judgement. In particular there is often insufficient training in thinking in quantitative terms, e.g. in assessing the health risk posed by certain substances or radiation doses.

3.6.1. Interestingly it is mainly in those European countries in which elemental dangers and risks (such as hunger, cold, disease, acute poverty, arbitrary government, repression and lack of freedom) have been most successfully banished by technological, social and political progress that minor, or often even imagined, risks are a source of widespread anxiety. (Research could usefully be carried out to establish whether human beings have a certain psychological propensity, largely independent of objective circumstances, to develop fears of the unknown which if need be seek or even create their own object.)

3.6.2. Here, every effort must be made to produce informative assessments by means of comparisons with other - in particular unavoidable and omnipresent - risks.

3.6.3. To arrive at the most objective and balanced assessment possible in each individual case while not losing sight of real threats, it is essential to have adequate expert knowledge of the particular scientific/technical and political/social problems. Sound knowledge is built on sound training. This applies to the issue of "improving the public's knowledge of science" set out in the Commission Working Paper (see especially Section 5).

3.7. The Commission quite rightly calls for a Europe-wide debate on these problems. Such a debate will have to determine more clearly than in the past

- whether the risks and ethical problems are already present in the process of acquiring the knowledge - i.e. in the research itself, as with in vivo research for instance;

- or in potentially dangerous applications of technologies developed on the basis of new knowledge;

- or whether they are present in population growth (or decline in some regions), or in rising prosperity and the concomitant - often unheeding - consumption habits and lifestyles.

3.7.1. This last point includes above all those - primarily environmental - problems and risks caused by factors such as rapid population growth and increases in resource consumption, emissions, and land use - i.e. material prosperity. Scientific benefits may become a problem because of their impact on human behaviour (e.g. problems caused by affluence).

3.7.2. Mostly it was the members of the scientific community itself who first identified such problems (e.g. hole in ozone layer, greenhouse effect) and proposed solutions, thereby launching a political process (e.g. the Montreal protocol) (see also point 6.3.2).

3.8. In this connection the Commission also raises the question of whether it is possible or even desirable for the EU to strive for a common stance and hence common rules on the associated moral concepts (e.g. embryonic progenitor cells).

3.8.1. The ESC recommends that the Commission take measures to identify and explain as clearly as possible both the factual/scientific and ethical aspects of such problems, so that political decisions can then be taken on that basis (see also point 4.9).

3.8.2. Bearing in mind, however, that the stances of the Member States on some of these issues are quite divergent and even antithetical, the ESC would recommend proceeding very cautiously in the matter of uniform European rules so that potentially avoidable and emotive arguments between the Member States do not get in the way of European integration.

3.9. In addition one sometimes has the impression that the debate on these problems is also marked by a struggle between the arts and sciences (C.P. Snow's "two cultures") as to which outlook should prevail in society.

3.9.1. The ESC therefore recommends supporting all measures which help to reduce the polarisation, between arts and sciences and bring them closer together. This also includes two-way dialogue on issues such as methodology, conceptualisation, evaluation of results, etc.

3.9.2. The ESC would refer inter alia to the increased use of empirical and quantitative methods in social research (less and less tainted by ideologies). A particularly topical example of this is brain research, in which neurology, physics, psychiatry, psychology, linguistics and information technology increasingly converge. Furthermore, there exist certain affinities and common traits between science, mathematics and art, such as the search for simple, harmonious and aesthetic solutions (see also point 4.7).

3.9.3. At this point, the ESC would stress the key role that human sciences play in the (European) social and legal order as well as in language, culture and the formation of an historical and social identity. It therefore endorses the Commission's comment in the Working Paper on "taking greater account of the contribution that the human sciences can make".

3.9.4. Key areas where natural sciences and the humanities come together and interact include the responsibility borne by science, scientific theory, ethics - including the ethics of science and research - and people's changing image of themselves in the universe and on earth in the wake of new scientific discoveries.

3.9.5. The primary joint cultural task of the humanities and natural sciences is to broaden and extend knowledge about humankind and the world, to pass that knowledge on and to preserve it for the future.

4. Society, researchers and research; mutual understanding

4.1. Training and keeping researchers - building up and looking after "human capital" - is the most important precondition for remaining competitive and successful in a knowledge-based society and economy. The current situation gives grave cause for concern.

4.1.1. The ESC therefore feels it is urgent not only to train scientists, but also to make the researcher's subsequent career attractive enough to ensure:

- that a sufficient number of young people go on to study natural sciences; and

- that, against a backdrop of global competition, European science is also able to draw on an adequate supply of "human capital" from among these new players once they have completed their training.

4.1.2. In the knowledge-based society, research must have a career status that encourages young people to undertake an arduous, long (ultimately lifelong) and challenging period of study (see also point 5.2). In return both women and men must be offered appropriate career prospects - in money terms, too - and a social status commensurate with the importance of this profession.

4.1.2.1. As an example of a first step in this direction, the Committee would point to the Commission communication of 17 February 1999 entitled Women and science: mobilising women to enrich European research(2).

4.1.3. This also includes an environment in which science and technology - and the findings thereof - are not met with blanket hostility by large sectors of society, since it is off-putting to anyone considering embarking on a career if the job and its results are perceived as unwanted.

4.1.4. This task requires a political and economic rethink - and appropriate action.

4.2. To achieve competence, efficiency or even a leading position in a particular scientific area, the persons and groups concerned must first undertake a demanding period of training usually lasting several years. In addition, expensive technical equipment must often first be set up and a stimulating environment - research structures - created. This is a valuable and expensive investment in "human capital" and in research infrastructure.

4.3. Good and successful research cannot therefore be switched on and off or redirected at the whim of economic cycles or current political trends, but requires sufficient continuity and reliability.

4.3.1. It was not least some Member States' political priorities of the past decade that militated against such a view and contributed to the sharp decline in students opting for scientific/technical subjects which now threatens Europe's competitiveness in the global marketplace.

4.4. As important as continuity and gradual development are for successful research, this must not mean that research becomes uncritically stuck in the same groove. However, careful consideration must be given to the room for manoeuvre for, and approach to, any change of direction.

4.4.1. Ideas for promising new directions are as a rule suggested by - often unexpected - research findings and mostly come from researchers themselves who can then take them forward with the necessary expertise.

4.4.2. Most of the great discoveries - in physics, for example, electromagnetic force and induction, electromagnetic waves, x-rays, cathode ray tubes, transistors and lasers, and in biology, for example, DNA structure (double helix) - were the outcome of fundamental research not geared to particular applications.

4.4.3. A single new idea can snowball into an avalanche of innovation and technical advances, penetrating many economic sectors. Recent examples are computer and communications technologies and gene technology.

4.4.4. A targeted planned approach - and the requisite policy decisions that go with it - can only be put into operation if, on the basis of a novel concept, objectives can be defined and the way ahead is sufficiently clear.

4.5. Current knowledge and contemporary technology - i.e. the mainstay of the European public's present-day standard of living - are a result of interplay between basic research, applied research and product-oriented technical development.

4.5.1. Research and development in the EU are thus based on two key pillars: (i) industrial research and development and (ii) research and development carried out in universities and publicly-funded research institutes ("academia"). In an earlier opinion(3), the ESC already outlined in some detail the importance of cooperation and exchange of knowledge between these two pillars, but also pointed out the obstacles which exist and which must be removed as a matter of urgency.

4.5.2. These common features - but also the mutually reinforcing functions of industry and academia in creating today's modern technology - result in a certain division of responsibilities for ensuring that products, when used properly, are useful, pose no danger and indeed do not cause harm.

4.5.3. Science (in academia and industry) delivers the knowledge, industry delivers the products and citizens and society decide on use (cf. also point 3.5.1 and section 6).

4.6. Nevertheless there will sometimes be misunderstandings between society, the public and the scientific community about the nature of scientific research; this must not lead to mistakes in research policy and the instruments used to manage it. Some of these misunderstandings are addressed below.

4.7. Research is a step into the unknown and the approaches adopted by the individual or by the group vary and complement each other according to need, talent and temperament. Researchers are managers, engineers, collectors, hair-splitters or artists. Research is groping in the mist, hunches, surveying an unknown landscape, collecting and collating data, finding new signs, tracing underlying connections and patterns, recognising new correlations, developing mathematical models, developing the necessary concepts and symbols, developing and building new equipment, searching for simple solutions and harmony. But it is also confirming, making sure, expanding, generalising and reproducing.

4.7.1. It is inevitable - necessary even - that during this search and discovery process individual researchers or groups of researchers ("schools") will compete to come up with possible solutions and explanations; they will discuss with each other, contradict each other and even on occasion confront each other. Advances in knowledge come about through the interplay of hypothesis and criticism, the comparison of one set of data with another.

4.7.2. One of the misunderstandings between society and researchers therefore lies in the impression that researchers do not know the answer to many questions themselves and frequently contradict each other (and have not therefore even mastered their own specialised area).

4.7.3. This is only the case when and because researchers are discussing something that is still only suspected, not yet certain, an unknown. Because they are talking about opinions, hypotheses and not yet about methodically secured knowledge. And because often they do not or cannot make this sufficiently clear with the brevity demanded by the interviewer (see also point 4.8.7).

4.7.4. The crucial feature of (natural) scientific knowledge is the step from the scientific quest phase to the reproducibility of findings and demonstration of their range of validity (and its limits). Ultimately, nature decides the accuracy of the statements made.

4.7.5. Because of the need for proof of reproducibility, parallel or repeated experiments by other research groups, generally using modified techniques or procedures, are often categorised as "duplication of research". This is in fact an essential element of scientific method and progress. It is a guarantee against errors or even falsification.

4.7.6. The knowledge thus acquired and confirmed by reproducibility - which, because it has its limits and is incomplete, may be supplemented, broadened or refined by further new findings - then finds its way into the text books and becomes the basis for further research.

4.7.7. Besides the reproducibility of individual results it is, however, also the consistency of the interaction of recognised natural laws - the basis of all technical systems, from magnetic resonance imaging to space travel - which contributes to confidence in the new knowledge and gives rise to further questions where this consistency is still incomplete or its limits are clear. Herein lies the striving "to unify natural laws" and ultimately for a "grand unifying theory" (despite the qualification that, in terms of scientific theory, it is impossible to produce "unequivocal scientific findings").

4.8. A particularly difficult set of problems which gives rise to a great many misunderstandings is the question of the predictability of future developments.

4.8.1. In the case of certain simple patterns of events, such as celestial mechanics, the known laws of nature enable us to make very precise predictions. Even here, however, there are strict boundaries beyond which clear predictions are inherently impossible (deterministic chaos, turbulence).

4.8.2. Another fundamental limit to the predictability of future events resides in the statistical nature of quantum physics.

4.8.3. In addition there are all those problems where the regularity of the individual constituent processes are more or less well known, but where, because of the complex interaction of a large number of components and defining factors, it is not possible to make a long-term prediction of future developments.

4.8.4. While, therefore, established knowledge enables us to make some reliable predictions, e.g. the future position of certain heavenly bodies (eclipses), it is precisely in those areas of key importance for political decisions (e.g. future climate changes or expected economic/ideological/political/population crises, natural disasters, etc.) that frequently only conjectures or indications as to potential developments or risks are possible. Such prognostications are much more difficult and therefore often at least as unreliable as, for instance, the stock market predictions of financial experts.

4.8.4.1. Clearly there is also a potential for error in the links between the opinion and behaviour of those concerned. This may be the result of insufficient knowledge, particular interests and the desire for consensus and acceptance within the group.

4.8.4.2. This confuses scientific findings with the opinion of the majority.

4.8.4.3. Additional force may be lent to an opinion by exposure in publications and the media.

4.8.5. For a critical assessment of predictions and the likelihood of their being correct, a distinction must therefore be made between the following cases:

4.8.5.1. the necessary, admissible and mostly usable forecasts made by extrapolating from trends or figures (e.g. population figures) - examples: future needs for teachers, roads, housing, energy, etc. - assuming continuity of the trend;

4.8.5.2. the general unpredictability of ("unexpected") revolutionary political, social, technological and similar innovations, upheavals, discoveries, developments, which have a deep impact on the overall scheme of things and change many relationships. Often, after a fairly lengthy period of turbulence and oscilliations, a new equilibrium then arises with new trends, etc.

4.8.5.3. suppositions, warnings or fears that the "predictable" developments of point 4.8.5.1 could subsequently worsen/reach crisis point (climate, population, resistance, revolution, lack of primary materials, etc.) and lead to an unpredictable development as described in point 4.8.5.2.

4.8.6. In view of society's great interest in future developments, "futurology" has become an independent field of research - despite or even because of the problems associated with predicting the future. The abovementioned limitations mean that the various forecasting procedures must be examined and tested to assess their past success rate in predicting surprising developments. It is extremely important for political decision-makers to know how much certainty or uncertainty to attribute to a prediction or "scenario".

4.8.7. While on the one hand it is the duty of scientists to bring such possible risks they recognise (point 4.8.4) forcefully to society's attention and to make clear the current state of knowledge and its limits, there is on the other hand, especially in this area, the temptation to enhance the status of personal opinions or even particular interests by pinning a scientific label on them or selecting appropriate "experts".

4.8.7.1. This kind of conduct can also lead to a public loss of confidence in science.

4.8.7.2. Particular communication difficulties may arise - and the corresponding potential for inducement - between the public and scientists when, in a largely political environment, scientists are, for instance, faced with political interests or assertions and the rhetoric that goes with that, or are themselves an integral part of such interest groups - in other words when the division of responsibility between politics and science becomes blurred.

4.8.7.3. Hence, in this field especially, it is particularly important to set high standards for the qualifications, knowledge and probity of the experts involved in the debate (see also point 3.5.4), and possibly also to include these as factors for assessment. That certainly does not mean that discussion (see point 6.8.1) of the issues concerned should be confined solely to experts. However, a clear distinction should be made between interested and possibly concerned citizens on the one hand and experts on the other; attention should be also be paid to the expertise and accuracy underlying experts' statements.

4.8.8. The ESC therefore recommends that the Commission work towards ensuring that the general public has a clearer picture of the issues involved - and is able to make the requisite distinctions - thus securing a better culture of dialogue between researchers and society. The media must also play their part in this process, and act responsibly in their key role as intermediaries. In this area in particular, it is important to make a clearer distinction between rhetoric and expertise and to resist any temptation to proselytise.

4.9. In the relationship between citizens, society and science, the issue of possible professional and/or ethical misconduct by scientists also plays a role.

4.9.1. While both professional misconduct and mistakes made in good faith by scientists can be uncovered and punished largely by means of self-regulation by science itself (the most effective tool being the requirement for reproducibility - see points 4.7.4 and 4.7.5), the issue of ethical misconduct goes to the core of the relationship between society and science.

4.9.2. Ethical misconduct may mean that, when pursuing their scientific activities, individual scientists or research teams violate ethical standards set in place and accepted by society. Motives for such conduct include the thirst for knowledge, hubris, an obsession with profit, the desire for fame etc. Together, science and society must be vigilant to ensure that such misconduct is uncovered, prevented and punished.

4.9.3. Of course, particularly as a result of new discoveries and scientific and technological progress, society's views on ethical standards are the subject of ongoing debate among all social groups (see also point 3.8) and are thus liable to change. The ESC expressly supports the Commission in its efforts set out in the Working Paper to forge "more structural links between existing ethics committees at national and European level" and to secure "better co-ordination of research ... into the ethics of science conducted in Europe".

4.9.4. Misconduct may also emerge - and indeed may be generated by society itself - where society as a whole (or a majority within society) violates ethical or moral principles. Science then becomes, for example, an integral part of the ideological goals and opinions of the society in which it operates; in other words, it acts by mutual arrangement or even to order. This issue goes beyond the scope of this opinion.

4.9.4.1. However, given the current political machinery in the EU and its Member States, and the fundamental rights recognised there, there is currently no cause for concern that this issue might in future surface in the European research area.

4.10. The ESC recommends that the Commission take these points discussed in section 4 into account in all discussions on "governance" and advocate this approach to policy-makers and business.

5. Scientific education: a sine qua non of a knowledge-based society

5.1. In some Member States at least, the value and importance of science and technology is not directly acknowledged by the public as a whole and by society. The ESC feels therefore that an appropriate Europe-wide educational blueprint should be developed(4) to bring about a change in this attitude.

5.1.1. Foundations and associations can also play an important role here.

5.1.2. This blueprint should also include issues relating to the candidate countries.

5.2. Point 4.1.2 above already noted the importance of demanding, high-quality, academic vocational training for scientists and researchers and the need to make the scientific profession sufficiently attractive for talented young people.

5.3. This section deals mainly with the ESC's concern to ensure that, substantially more than in the past, non-scientists and ultimately all citizens must, as a fundamental part of their education, also acquire adequate basic knowledge of science and mathematics. Natural sciences and mathematics are also part of our cultural heritage.

5.3.1. The current lack of adequate basic scientific knowledge is particularly harmful in the areas of politics and the media: in politics because it is here that decisions are taken which affect society, and in the media, because it is their task to communicate knowledge from specialists to the general public and to report on scientific/technological problems in an accurate and balanced way.

5.3.1.1. If the scientific community and society are to be able to talk to each other, there must be not only the willingness but also the ability to engage in dialogue on both sides. This is essential to bridge the gap in knowledge between science and the citizen - regardless of the somewhat fruitless and polarised debate on reciprocal rights and obligations.

5.3.1.2. The other essential condition is that scientific representatives and institutions endeavour to convey to the public their knowledge and their difficulties in a way that is as clear and as readily understandable as possible and to open up universities, technical colleges and research centres to the public and to society.

5.4. The first task - and a key ESC recommendation - is for science and scientific disciplines, together with mathematical thinking, to be given a place in the school curriculum appropriate to today's knowledge-based society (see also point 3.2.5). Pupils must thereby of course also be proficient in at least their mother tongue.

5.4.1. At the same time teaching methods need to be developed through which knowledge can be better organised, prioritised and communicated. The scope and diversity of knowledge must be presented in a clear and understandable way by teaching pupils about generic links and specific case studies.

5.4.2. The fact that this will involve considerable work and intellectual effort for both teachers and pupils should be seen as an incentive rather than as an excuse. This is the most effective way to achieve the objective set out in the Commission Working Paper of "improving the public's knowledge of science".

5.4.3. Moreover, the knowledge, insights and attitudes acquired during school education are a decisive factor in subsequent career choices. The ESC therefore expressly endorses the Commission's statement that "it is also necessary to step up science teaching in schools in Europe in order to reverse the dwindling attraction among the young of scientific professions and the world of research".

5.5. Among other things, however, all this also means that the teaching profession - which is essential to the transmission of this knowledge - must be made sufficiently attractive and must be given an appropriate status. Schools should also be adequately equipped.

5.6. In addition, the ESC would point to the overall link that must now be established between basic school education, lifelong learning and scientific knowledge. This link can better and more efficiently be developed as part of a European domain of learning and education. This domain could encompass not only the European dimension of education, but also "any other current learning-related challenge or procedure of concern to the European citizen"(5).

6. Research policy and the interest of society

6.1. This section deals with a thorny issue which cannot be addressed with complete consistency. Moreover, many of the aspects involved have already been touched on in the previous sections.

6.2. Interaction between the science and society - generally represented by politicians, civil servants or representatives of funding bodies - mostly concerns (i) agreement about research objectives and subjects, (ii) the type and extent of research funding, (iii) the evaluation of research findings and (iv) the people involved in research. However, it also brings in the issue of how far research is or should be able to be steered in a particular direction.

6.2.1. This issue relates to the question posed by the Commission Working Paper and already cited at the beginning of this opinion (see 1.5), namely: "how to implement research policy around the real aims of society and fully involve society in seeing through the research agenda".

6.3. This question touches on a number of misunderstandings between society, science and research. First of all, it implies that research policy to date has failed to serve the real aims of society.

6.3.1. Yet current knowledge about the laws of nature - and the achievements built on it - are predominantly the result of the initiative, creativity and passion for discovery of researchers, inventors and entrepreneurs, and are the basis of present-day prosperity in Europe.

6.3.2. Furthermore, the currently perceived anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic (i.e. untouched by man and his technology) problems affecting, for example, the long-term survival of our ecosystem were recognised and brought to the attention of politicians and public first and foremost by members of the scientific community (see also point 3.7.2).

6.3.3. Hence, we would again point out that society and politicians are normally slower than the scientific community itself to recognise not only upcoming risks and dangers, but also economic opportunities offered by new technologies (e.g. information technology). Hence, science and society must join forces in a bid to ensure that, because of this inherent time lag, politicians do not neglect innovations in favour of tried and tested technologies.

6.3.4. Moreover, the question cited in point 6.2.1 wrongly implies that the findings of a research policy implemented "around the real aims of society" will necessarily all be "good", with any subsequent harmful applications or impacts thus ruled out from the start (see also point 3.4.5).

6.4. The question cited in point 6.2.1 also implies that society can and should be fully involved "in seeing through the research agenda".

6.4.1. Even though it is not clear who is in a position to conduct research other than researchers themselves, the ESC recognises as constructive and worthy of support the Commission's intention:

- to clearly address the primary competence of politics when awarding the financial resources required for research;

- to bring researchers and the public closer together to their mutual benefit;

- to take into account the diverse aims and interests of society (and its various branches) when framing and implementing the research agenda.

6.4.1.1. Thus objective, external criticism of science (e.g. from citizens' action groups, consumer associations or laymen's organisations) may have quite a beneficial effect. It may lead to a rethink or even scepticism, particularly where internal, institutional-level discussions risk breaking down because of, for instance, centralised machinery or economic and/or political pressures (e.g. BSE).

6.4.2. Accordingly, the ESC backs the Commission's further statement on this point in its staff Working Paper that "there should be comparative studies of the lessons to be drawn from both European and national experience in this area in order to promote the dissemination and application of best practice".

6.4.3. The issues raised in point 6.4 above relate mainly to targeted research. The ESC would therefore again stress that the scenario outlined above can only thrive on a broad foundation of diversified fundamental research which is not tied to specific applications. The ESC thereby underlines and extends the Commission's point in its paper that "research must retain a sufficient degree of inquisitiveness and impartiality".

6.5. The question cited in point 6.2.1 also implies that "society" knows what "real aims" it wants to see research focus on.

6.5.1. "Society", however, is an abstract concept and in reality is a highly diverse amalgam comprising a whole range of different cultures, religions, perspectives, lifestyles and goals. Initially, the "interests" of this abstract concept can be determined empirically only as the amalgamation of all individual perceptions, expectations and, if necessary, fears. This amalgamation of all individual interests is both diffuse and fluid and therefore scarcely comprehensible to politicians.

6.5.2. It requires the horizontal and vertical organisation of society (intermediary groups, parties, associations, trade unions, foundations, citizens' initiatives, combines, etc.) to channel and aggregate these interests. The importance of the mass media in this context should not be underestimated.

6.5.3. Not until the completion of this very complicated brokering and condensing operation, in the course of which individual interests are transformed, filtered and merged in a variety of ways, can these interests become the "interests of society", which trigger and become the subject of political action by superordinated bodies.

6.5.4. Democratic procedures and institutions play a decisive role in this collecting, counterbalancing and condensing operation. This is also where the ESC comes into play at European level as a body of the European Communities.

6.5.5. It is therefore important that every government, administration or party is aware of the difference - which may extend to constituting a conflict - between the individual interests existing at the start and their politically effective amalgamated form.

6.6. This uncertainty with regard to the basis of decision-making, however, does not absolve politicians of their duty to act. Damage must be averted and risks mitigated. This generally requires some knowledge of future developments and this is often limited or, at worst, non-existent (see point 4.8.4).

6.6.1. Politics means acting on behalf of society and inevitably also includes experimenting with society.

6.6.2. This dilemma affecting political action cannot be eliminated, merely defused:

6.6.2.1. by an awareness of the limited predictability of future developments (and the impact of political decisions) and a readiness to take corrective action to counter unwelcome developments or undesirable consequences of earlier action, and

6.6.2.2. by developing the best possible knowledge base ("research policy") for political decisions and recognising not only the conditions under which science operates but also its potential and limitations.

6.7. While detailed statements on overall policy (6.6.1) would go beyond this ESC opinion's scope, brief consideration will now be given to the issue raised in point 6.6.2.2, in part recapitulating what has already been said in sections 2 to 4 above.

6.7.1. The first condition for developing the best possible knowledge base is the maintenance or establishment of an economic, political, social and cultural environment in which science enjoys broad public support and where creativity and inventiveness can develop most effectively. The key elements of such an environment are:

- to promote communication between citizens and scientists (i.e. the players making up society and the scientific community) and reduce existing barriers;

- to provide information about science in schools, universities and the media; to bring out clearly the research process, the acquisition of knowledge and the inspiration which drives scientists; to show the strengths and limitations of science in order to counter unrealistic expectations (which can result in scepticism towards science);

- to deploy for this purpose "media information officers" (experienced staff trained in the mass media including the public television stations to be found in some Member States) in order to reach broad sections of the population effectively and to ensure that the information is delivered in an appropriate form;

- to ensure that these media information officers not only have specialised scientific training, but are also educated in the background, methods and history of science in general;

- to make clear the risk potential of any creative venture (even pure science, philosophy and art). (Let us not forget the socio-cultural and intellectual upheavals that resulted from Copernicus' planetary theories, Darwin's theory of evolution, Marxism and Freudian psychoanalysis. The potential for socio-ideological conflict remains great, e.g. genetics, intelligence research, socio-biology or gender studies.);

- to make people aware that the risk potential of new technologies or research programmes cannot in principle be fully assessed on an objective basis. (What would be the impact of successful geriatric research which resulted in the average lifespan rising to, say, 120 years?)

6.7.2. The second condition for developing an optimum knowledge base is the maintenance or establishment of the best possible internal operating environment for science. Independent studies (including Commission-sponsored research) should be carried out into this issue and their findings should be made available to policymakers. Key measures which can be identified include:

- strengthening the interplay between fundamental and applied research in a diverse, multi-polar scientific system;

- protecting scientific freedom;

- securing freedom for applied research as well;

- guaranteeing scientists' independence, for example, from political, ideological or economic pressures;

- protecting and strengthening - within the framework of policy directives - the scientific community's autonomy and its right to run its own affairs;

- studying the impact, administrative burden and effectiveness of the various application and approval procedures;

- taking account of the diverse range of social aims and interests;

- also fostering and being open to knowledge in which "society" currently has no interest.

6.8. The following points amplify what is said above and also look at some specific aspects of the issue:

6.8.1. The ESC backs Commission moves to conduct regular dialogue - including dialogue at European-level - between representatives of society and the scientific community on research objectives and the associated ethical issues, as well as on potential applications and other aspects of technology that might be developed as a result. This dialogue should bring in representatives both of major scientific societies (e.g. the European Physical Society, Academia Europaea and national scientific societies) and of institutions promoting research (such as organisations, foundations and associations), and include visits to research establishments and discussions with individual researchers on site. Apart from securing the requisite consensus as regards content, expectations, support etc., dialogue can also help foster better understanding between researchers and representatives of society.

6.8.1.1. The ESC would emphasise its intention to be closely involved in this dialogue on the basis of its remit and membership. As a next step, the Committee calls on the other EU institutions to join it in staging a hearing on this issue, attended, inter alios, by representatives of academia, industry, consumers and other relevant organisations and by leading figures in the field.

6.8.2. A key principle of any research policy should as far as possible be to adopt a "bottom-up" approach, with the "top-down" approach only applied where necessary. Similarly, there should be as much decentralisation as possible and only as much centralisation as required. In the ESC's view, this principle does not thwart the objectives of the European research area, but means that responsibilities and the powers of decision and initiative, etc. are to be delegated as far as possible under the Commission's research policy, too.

6.8.3. Using additional programme-based research resources for support and guidance purposes requires a solid and sufficient base of top-class institutions which (i) have the requisite experience and the appropriate equipment and infrastructure and (ii) are able to take up new issues and tap into new fields quickly.

6.8.3.1. A balance is therefore needed between institutional and project- or programme-based support.

6.8.4. A key issue here is how to measure teaching and research standards (if indeed this can be done at all) and what resources it would be reasonable and productive to devote to this purpose. There are two sides to this question.

6.8.4.1. On the one hand, the experience and expertise of the best and most successful scientists will be required for this purpose. However, the procedures involved (assessments, applications, meetings, hearings etc.) mean that the scientists concerned are then no longer available for active research. Research policy mechanisms, support schemes etc. must therefore be framed so as to secure a balanced and ultimately productive trade-off between these two considerations.

6.8.4.2. On the other hand, the selected assessment procedures must not rule out support for genuinely innovative or even revolutionary discoveries because, for instance, they fail to meet the criteria of established research priorities, which could not of course have foreseen such developments. (Scientific investigations raise doubts as to whether this is possible at all.)

6.8.5. For this reason too, it is essential to promote and cultivate a diverse range of interdisciplinary research methods, assessment procedures and research structures in order to encourage and draw on the resultant competition for the best ideas and findings. This is the optimum breeding ground for scientific progress.

6.8.6. Good research, especially interdisciplinary research, requires a pluralistic and sometimes, it would seem, even chaotic environment. This fact must be borne in mind by politicians and administrations, for it impedes the requisite insight and overview, which could be gained much more easily from a clearly structured and monothematic research environment.

6.9. The ESC thus strongly recommends that the Commission also make best possible governance a research topic in its own right, bringing in accumulated experience of research, its management and assessment, and scientific theory. The ESC feels that the Commission's paper and this own-initiative opinion are a first important step in this direction.

7. Summary and recommendations

7.1. "Science, society and the citizen" is a topic of major importance for social policy. The ESC supports the Commission in its efforts to address this issue and to secure ongoing dialogue among all those concerned. The ESC would stress its intention to take part in this dialogue and its suitability for the task as a EU body.

7.1.1. This own-initiative opinion contributes towards this dialogue. As a next step, the ESC urges that the EU institutions stage a joint hearing on the issue.

7.2. This own-initiative opinion deals very comprehensively with the gulf in knowledge and the problems that have arisen in the relationship between citizens, society and science. These involve in particular:

- public expectations of science and what it can achieve;

- the opportunities and risks of knowledge-based technologies, medicine, food etc.;

- the predictability of future developments;

- the nature of science and research;

- the scope and errors of research policy with regard, for instance, to

- the ability to measure scientific achievement and the effort required to do this;

- the "interests of society";

- the cooperation network - and requisite transparency - between research, development and production and between academia, industry and consumers;

- the unambiguity of assessing results and the predictability of risks.

7.2.1. Therefore, apart from the topics referred to above, the dialogue between citizens, society and knowledge should also address, inter alia:

- ethical issues;

- environment and energy policy: biosphere, ecosphere, resources, economics;

- research policy, e.g. purpose, organisation and assessment of research;

- research, innovation, industry, consumers.

7.3. The ESC strongly recommends the adoption of measures to reduce this gulf in knowledge.

7.3.1. These measures should include opening-up universities and research establishments even more to citizens and a stronger and firmer commitment on the part of the media to supply understandable and proper information.

7.3.2. Above all, however, schools should do much more than in the past to give citizens a sound educational grounding in science and research - including the operating environment in which successful research can function. For this purpose, an appropriate Europe-wide educational blueprint should be developed, which also includes issues relating to the candidate countries.

7.3.3. This must also cover knowledge both of the historical process and of Europe's unique cultural contribution which led to present-day scientific and technological achievements and established unprecedentedly high living conditions for the people of Europe.

7.4. In addition to science's major contribution to today's prosperity and the opportunities it offers for the future, the ESC also recognises (i) the dangers and risks which may arise from modern, knowledge-based technology and (ii) the potential threat to the biosphere as a result of today's industrial way of life.

7.5. The ESC therefore also recommends that (continued) efforts be made to establish clear standards for the responsible use of ultra-powerful technologies (developed using scientific findings) and to monitor compliance. The ESC would stress its own role in this process.

7.6. The ESC recommends that support be given to all measures which lead to less polarisation and closer ties between the arts and natural sciences. This should also include mutual exchanges about, for example, methodology, the definition of terms and the assessment of results.

7.7. The ESC points out the lack of "human capital" in science and research. "Human capital" is the basic element of successful research and development, thus also of innovation and economic competitiveness. The ESC recommends action to remedy this situation. Some key elements here include making research and development more attractive - including to women - and promoting science as a profession with a commensurate status.

7.8. The ESC recommends making the operational environment required for successful and internationally competitive research and development a research topic in its own right, and bringing the findings to bear when discussing the issue of "governance" in research policy. The points of view and recommendations set out in this opinion should be taken into consideration in this context and defended vis-à-vis politicians and businessmen.

7.9. The following is a summary of some of the main points made by the ESC in this opinion:

7.9.1. Initially, the "aims of society" are an intangible abstract concept. A more tightly structured, if still diverse and not necessarily contradiction-free set of views can be gained only through complicated democratic condensing processes.

7.9.2. This uncertainty with regard to the basis of decision-making, does not however, absolve politicians of their duty to act. Politics means acting on behalf of society and inevitably also includes experimenting with society. This dilemma affecting political action cannot be eliminated, but merely defused:

- by an awareness of the limited predictability of future developments and a readiness to take corrective action where necessary, and

- by developing the best possible knowledge base ("research policy") for political decisions and recognising not only the conditions under which science operates but also its potential and limitations.

7.9.3. The prerequisites for the best possible knowledge base include, inter alia:

- an ongoing dialogue between the players representing science and society;

- an economic, political and cultural environment in which science enjoys broad public support and where creativity and inventiveness can develop most effectively;

- the best possible internal operating environment for science;

- enough people who are ready and able to choose science as a profession.

Brussels, 30 May 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke Frerichs

(1) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000.

(2) COM(1999) 76 final

(3) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000, p. 70 European research area.

(4) For further details see OJ C 139, 11.5.2001, p. 85 (European dimension of education).

(5) OJ C 139, 11.5.2001, p. 85 (point 2.5).

[Top](#document1)