Freedom from politics is only way to success for EU science

By Lorraine Mallinder

Date: 31/03/05

At the best of times, science and politics make uncomfortable bedfellows. The world of politicians, with their tendency to short-termism, their nods to vested interests and their obsession with control, often seems the antithesis of the unruly quest for scientific innovation.

The uneasy relationship between the two has been very much in evidence over recent years. The EU's Sixth Framework Programme, the main mechanism for funding European research and implementing the European Research Area, has been under constant fire from scientists railing against excessive bureaucracy and the political pressures implicit in funding decisions.

Next week, the European Commission will unveil its official proposal for the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) for research and development, which will run from 2006-10. Hot topics are a potential multiplying of the current €17.5 billion budget, leaner administrative procedures and the establishment of a scientist-led European Research Council (ERC) capable of making independent funding decisions. But FP7 goes a step further than previous research programmes. Its raison d'être is entwined with the aims of the highly ambitious Lisbon Agenda to make Europe's economy more competitive.

Expectations are running high among both scientists and politicians. Uncomfortable bedfellows they may be, but share a bed they must.

In June 2004, a consultation process was launched by the Commission to allow scientists to contribute to the preparation of the FP7. A familiar complaint was the lack of funding allocated to basic research, free of predefined market or legislative priorities. Dr Rüdiger Hesse, head of the Brussels office of research organisation the Max Planck Society, says: "Scientists have to take risks to be successful - we can't do management plans. Our type of research can't be scheduled if it is to be successful."

The Commission would appear to be taking heed. Peter Tindemans, a committee chairman of the Strasbourg-based Euroscience Association, says: "Lack of funding for basic science has been a major issue among scientists for the past 15 years. That has been picked up by the Commission and is the basis of the idea for the ERC.

"The important thing is that the Commission now accepts the idea of the ERC. They accept the rules by which this must be run, that it must be independent from political influence with a focus on peer review and quality."

But Hesse has a sense of déja vu. "There have always been consultations. The Commission is doing that all the time," he says. Sceptical about the ability of politicians to let go of the reins, he believes the proposed ERC will end up being an executive agency. He looks across the Atlantic for inspiration: "The concept discussed by the Commission is for more programmed research. But, the scientific community wants its own institution like the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the US - an independent body with self-administration and responsibility to taxpayers for money spent."

Hesse describes the NSF and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as the two pillars of scientific research in the US and suggests that the EU would do well to follow this type of model. "If we get this in Europe, that would be perfect," he says, "but I doubt that politicians will want to invest in the sort of success story that might take 10-15 years."

So, what of the future of European science - can it produce the major innovations needed to drive forward the Lisbon Agenda while guided by the heavy hand of Brussels? Tindemans laments the Commission's tendency to herd all the best scientists under common research programmes. "This is not the way basic science advances," he explains, referring to the 1950s race to unravel the mystery of DNA, a dramatic tale worthy of any thriller. "Raw competition and secretiveness were the rules of the game," he says. "Science is about competition."

One of Hesse's peers understands only too well the dangers of rigid central planning. Having been unsuccessful in submitting an EU proposal, a Russian scientist commented that European framework programmes were as bad as the former Soviet planning, with similar results. An exaggeration perhaps, but it is clear that the FP7 will need to allow European scientists more freedom to direct research if it is to be at all credible.

"Do we trust scientists to organise science by themselves, only controlled by auditors?" asks Hesse. "The examples of the US and elsewhere in Europe show that this can be successful, but it would be a huge change."

• Lorraine Mallinder is a freelance journalist based in Brussels.

Article discusses the relationship between politics and science under the EU's proposed 7th Framework Programme for Research for 2006-2010.

• Primary Source