Can Europe turn great research into great innovation, too?

Two MEPs debate how Europe could benefit from the EU's research programme

Research in Europe has made an important leap forward over the past five years. The European Commission’s diagnosis made in the 1990s of weaknesses within Europe’s scientific framework sparked recognition at EU and member state level of the sector’s strategic importance in terms of sustainable growth and competitiveness in the era of globalisation. At the root of EU weakness was the fragmentation, in some cases isolation, of member states’ policies, which led to a duplication of efforts, insufficient public sector investment, difficulties in keeping hold of the best scientists, and a lack of structured links between universities, research centres and the business world.

Without a fresh approach, EU scientific power was in jeopardy. It was this threat that convinced EU leaders meeting in Lisbon in 2000 to support the idea of creating a European Research Area (ERA). In 2002, in Barcelona, member states agreed that 3% of gross domestic product should be invested in research by 2010. These two key decisions taken by the Council of Ministers gave Romano Prodi’s Commission, where I was responsible for research, the mandate to redefine a new strategic framework. Some of the main pillars have already been set up in the sixth framework programme (FP6).

The Directorate-General for Research was given a wide, open space in which to redefine the future of research in Europe. Central to Commission thinking was the creation of a true internal market for research and co-ordination of the 15 member states’ research policies with EU research policy. It was essential to think beyond the ‘15+1’ approach to put EU research at the heart of member state policymaking. We were convinced that EU research would be given added value by new synergies and the reinforcement of excellence in EU science.

This new approach to be followed by the European scientific community was, however, to be largely determined by one simple fact. For the next seven years, the seventh framework programme (FP7) will be receiving only €50 billion, which is the equivalent of just 5% of EU25 public spending.

Despite limited financial resources - the European Parliament strongly criticised the reduction of the budget by a third of the Commission’s original proposal - EU research policy is set to have the following effects:

• Better and more efficient co-ordination of national research and science programmes;

• Free circulation of EU researchers with the scrapping of all administrative hurdles lying in their way;

• More productive collaboration between EU research laboratories, with the creation of strong networks, especially in strategic areas such as biotechnology, nanotechnology and information technology;

• The creation of a European Research Council which will finance basic research at European level, to be defined by one criterion: excellence;

• The end of the brain drain to the US. Creation of those conditions that will attract the best minds to Europe;

• Universities and research laboratories will position themselves as centres for the production of knowledge, indispensable engines of economic growth;

• The definition and establishment of European technology platforms.

These are the main tenets of ERA, which are at the heart of FP7 priorities. These are grouped in four main categories: co-operation, ideas, people and capacities. Parliament will, in the next few weeks, reach an agreement on the whole package. I would like to congratulate Commissioner Janez Potoc?nik for the excellent proposals contained in FP7 and encourage him to go on to complete work on ERA, which will define the direction of tomorrow’s EU research policy.

• Belgian Socialist MEP Philippe Busquin is a member of the Parliament’s industry, research and energy committee.

Talking about co-operation between universities, research centres and industry means reflecting about the mechanisms operating in the triangle of knowledge - education, research and innovation.

Talking about co-operation between industry and public authorities means analysing the dimensions of public- private partnerships.

The first problem - relation between research and innovation - can be partially tackled by the 7th framework programme for research and development (FP7) but it cannot be solved entirely by it. We can raise, expand and reinforce the excellent research on a European level but we cannot guarantee - by the means of this programme - that the research results will be translated into concrete products which will be then commercialised. That is in the hands of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme as well as several other instruments. Of course, there is need for complementarity between these different initiatives and that is exactly what we’ve tried to achieve while working on FP7 in recent months. I have even launched the discussion about the possibilities of creating in the future a European Research and Innovation Area (ERIA) which would tackle the famous ‘European paradox’ - great research, poor innovation.

An instrument which could reveal its power in dealing with these problems could be the Risk Sharing Finance Facility (RSFF) which has been proposed in the next framework programme. Through the combination of community funds and those of the European Investment Bank (EIB), there would be a big opportunity for creating a €10 billion of loans in the next seven years which, in combination with additional €30bn coming from private investors, could provide to European research and innovation something like €40bn of venture capital.

A very interesting idea worth following up is the creation of the European Institute of Technology. If we pursue the main objective which is the networking and reaching synergies between excellent research and innovation communities in Europe and avoid any unnecessary bureaucracy or competition with existing universities, we can provide a very interesting instrument for achieving the european added value. The final proposal which is to be issued soon should focus then on emphasising the innovative character of the institute and supporting research and innovation at the highest levels of excellence.

As far as the first pillar of the triangle of knowledge is concerned, it is also partly out of the scope of FP7. Education is mainly under the responsibility of national authorities. But we should seek to link the European research dimension with the education and training programmes in higher education as much as possible.

Finally, in order to make Europe’s economy innovative and competitive, a close co-operation between public authorities and the private sector is essential. In FP7 this issue is addressed mainly by the joint technology initiatives which aim at developing major technologies through the creation of ambitious public private partnerships. These initiatives will be targeted on specific and strictly limited sectors where the critical mass for developing breakthrough technologies has been already achieved. They will combine private funding, national and European ones as well as loans from the EIB. Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs) will be built up on the experiences of European Technology Platforms (ETPs)?which are bringing together all the interested stakeholders. It is a very good starting point for JTIs because ETPs have proved their utility in developing and implementing strategic research agendas in numerous fields.

I am strongly convinced that the new proposed instruments and mechanisms have the potential to put Europe in the vanguard of global knowledge-based economy. Their implementation process in the coming years will show what we will create out of this potential.

• Polish centre-right MEP Jerzy Buzek is a member of the Parliament’s industry, research and energy committee and rapporteur on the 7th framework programme for research.

Two MEPs debate how Europe could benefit from the EU's research programme

• Primary Source