Future National Research Policies Within the Industrialized Nations: Report of a Symposium (1992)

Vice-President for Science, Research and Development, Telecommunications Information Industry, and Innovation, and the Joint Research Center, The Commission of the European Communities

In the United States one of the most important forums to elaborate proposals and to offer orientation to all parties concerned with research is the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable. A previous Research Roundtable symposium in March 1989 covered the history of research in the major industrialized countries; at this symposium we address the future.

In this presentation I will follow a similar sequence for the European Community (EC). First, I will give an overview of the practice of research and development (R&D) across the member states of the European Community. Second, I will identify and explain why the European Community has become active in science and technology and will describe the constraints on this activity. Third, I will set out the approaches that the European Community will need to follow in the future.

R&D in the European Community is extremely diversified. There are larger countries and smaller countries among the 12 member states of the Community, and there are highly developed and less developed countries and regions. The research structures within the member states reflect this diversity.

If we look at the universities first, some countries within the European Community exercise central control of the universities through a national ministry responsible for them; this is the case in France and Italy, for example. In other countries, however, universities are virtually independent or under the responsibility of local authorities, as in the United Kingdom or Germany.

Despite this diversity, trends sometimes are general, and many of these will be recognizable to a U.S. audience. A general trend since the Second World War is that the number of university students has greatly increased, but some subjects today are short of students; this is particularly the case for student enrollment in chemistry, engineering, computing, and some aspects of biology. This trend started around 15 years ago and is becoming more

serious. It is exacerbated by demographic changes because of the falling birth rates in Europe.

We can expect some very marked shortages of skilled persons in a number of areas. Indeed, we now have the warring juxtaposition of significant unemployment rates coupled with high level demand. This shows that the skills of those in the labor market are becoming mismatched with the demands of employers.

One way out is through increased involvement of universities in the so-called Weiter Bildung—continuing or repeated training—a need the Germans were the first to address. Science and technology evolve so rapidly today that every 10 years scientists or technicians need retraining. Often, this must be interdisciplinary because the borders between traditional disciplines are shifting all the time. In some universities we can expect that the absolute fall in the number of young students who are 20 to 25 years old will be compensated for by growth in the number of older students training or retraining.

University research has become increasingly involved with the application of knowledge and its industrial exploitation. This is a positive move, if not carried too far, for it enables both teachers and students to grapple with real problems and it brings universities extra funding. But it can be dangerous for it can divert attention from teaching and from fundamental research into more short-term areas. It must be recognized that universities are based on the abundance of knowledge for its own sake. The EC Commission's Industrial Research and Development Advisory Committee (IRDA), which is a group of high-level industrialists appointed in a personal capacity, has issued a very strong warning against the trend of turning first-rate scientists into second-rate technologists.

The problems I have mentioned are not exclusive to Europe. The main issue that is specific to Europe is that of linguistic and cultural diversity. At the moment, the European Community operates in nine different languages. The different approaches that people with different national backgrounds bring to the world and to the European Community amount to a cultural asset, but this diversity of languages is an obstacle to rapid, effective, and thorough communication. The resultant fragmentation is probably more harmful today than it was in the past. After all, until a few hundred years ago, the university system operated in a single language: Latin.

Turning to public research institutes, we again find a very different situation in Europe. These institutes vary enormously in both size and effectiveness, with the best of them producing some of the best science to be found anywhere in the world. A special form of public research institution in the European Community is the Community's own Joint Research Center (JRC). This was set up to provide neutral advice on scientific issues, mostly related to nuclear safety. The JRC has not so far been allowed to be an outstanding success, mainly because the member states have been unwilling to relinquish national sovereignty in a number of areas. But it

has been reorganized recently to make it more effective at the Community level and to develop a more commercial approach to its business.

On the purely industrial scene, Europe performs as well as any other country in the world in a number of areas, such as the pharmaceutical and food industries. In other areas, the small size of the individual member states has until now prevented the kind of investment levels that are seen in the United States or Japan.

The excellence of the European research system has enticed a very large number of multinationals to set up research laboratories in Europe, and this is a most important theme now in view of stronger cooperation on both sides of the Atlantic. Since these firms and their laboratories contribute to the European economy, we welcome their participation in Community research problems. This is one characteristic of our programs: they are open to European-based American companies and have had excellent experience in cooperating with them.

To sum up this look at the structure and trends in the research system in Europe, the key word is diversity: diversity in scope, structure, and mode of operation.

The basis of European Community activity in research and technological development is in its fundamental law. The European Community has no formal constitution; instead, it has a treaty, the Treaty of Rome, amended in 1987 by the Single European Act. This fundamental law establishes three principles for Community R&D activity. The first principle is competence in R&D activity. This was only formally recognized recently, in 1987, with the Single European Act. Now there is a title in the treaty, Title VI, that is the legal basis of our activity.

The second principle is "subsidiarity." What is this principle? There must be a line of demarcation between the activity in the R&D sector that belongs to the member states and the activities that it is possible to do at the Community level. The European Community needs something exactly like the famous Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which defines the line of demarcation between the competence of the federal government and the competence of the states. This principle in our system says that what is better done at the level of the member states belongs to the competence of the member states. Conversely, what for reasons of strategic elements is better done at the Community level must be done at this level.

The subsidiarity principle defines some criteria that can justify EC Community R&D activities. First, there is the size of the effort required. Second, there is the nature of the problems being studied—for example, environmental problems, which are a typical case of an international R&D activity, or supernational R&D activity, as in the case of the European Community. Third, there is multidisciplinarity. Fourth, there is research

to serve the Community's own policies. Now, for example, we have put some emphasis on so-called pre-normative research. In a large number of areas, the European Community sets regulations and directives that the member states have to comply with. These regulations must be based on the best science can offer.

Finally, the third principle of the Treaty of Rome is the scope of EC activity. The aim of EC R&D activity is laid down in the treaty in Article 130F. The objective of the Community is precisely to strengthen the scientific and technological basis of European industry and to encourage it to become more competitive at the international level. This formulation does provide support for basic research, but, nevertheless, it is difficult to justify support for curiosity-oriented or disinterested research.

The annual expenditure of the Community for R&D activities is now nearly $2.8 billion. Only three years ago it was less than $2 billion. These figures may sound surprisingly small to an American audience. Actually, the Community's own R&D expenditure represents only 4 or 5 percent of the total public and private R&D spending. But I must emphasize the fact that it is the character of the Community's R&D activity to be a catalyst: to promote broader activity in the member states and to make them cooperate in common initiatives.

I move from this discussion of the diversity among the individual member states of the Community and the specific responsibility and competence of the EC Commission, to now offer some thoughts on the future of EC activities.

First of all is the problem of increasing integration. We have the challenge now of how to build up a really integrated Community, for despite the solemn declaration of the Single European Act and despite the fact that we have built up the legal basis of the great Market, we need to build up the factual basis of our integration. In this first phase we have overcome the barriers of isolation, separation, and compartmentalization. But this is not enough. We need to promote really integrated activities at the level of the Community, and this is not an easy task.

For example, I have introduced in the third framework program for our activities in the R&D sector a very ambitious program to interconnect the information technology (IT) systems of the 12 member states. The aspiration of this program is something like the recent and ambitious program here in the United States for high-performance computing and communications. In the United States, fortunately, the unity of the nation exists, in spite of the various competencies of the states. On the contrary, in Europe the task is much more difficult because we have to build up the essential elementary infrastructures of the great European Market.

Second is the problem of human resources—another challenge for the European Community. I would like to underline that I have proposed a

program on human capital mobility that will allow the mobility in three years of 5,000 post-doctoral fellows. Of course, the first task for the Community is to implement this mobility within the boundaries of the European Community.

This program and this process, however, are not closed to the rest of the world, which is very important to reaffirm here in the United States. We have to remain open to the extension of this program to other parts of the world. For example, we are negotiating with European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries—Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland—the extension of this program in order to have joint mobility of human resources at the very crucial postdoctoral level.

We are also interested in extending this EC program to the United States. During a successful first meeting of the joint consultative group between the U.S. administration and the European Community on February 25, 1991, co-chaired by Dr. Bromley and me, we discussed ways to ensure a two-way flow of human resources—are juvenation of a historical tendency. The United States has represented for Europe an essential and indispensable term of reference for decades. Now I think the time is ripe to consider together some program for human capital mobility, for human resources have become one of the crucial independent variables of our system of R&D.

A year ago I presented here in the United States a proposal for new reinforcements between the United States and the European Community in the sector of research and technological development. I cited a famous speech by Secretary of State James Baker in Berlin on December 12, 1989, with his call for a trans-Atlantic community. One year later I am happy to see that this idea has borne fruit. The first meeting of the U.S.-EC Joint Consultative Group, and also this symposium today, I think, gives evidence of this fact. The agenda of the Joint Consultative Group is remarkably wide ranging, covering the role of science and technology in the European Community and the United States, energy and the environment, R&D in central and eastern Europe, basic science mega-projects, manpower and human resources, biotechnology, and information technology.

We have now planted the seed of cooperation between the European Community and the United States in science and technology and we have nursed the seed for a year. Over the coming years our challenge and our duty are to help it grow to a sturdy tree that can offer support and shelter to both our research communities.

Director General of the Directorate for Research, Science, and Development and the Joint Research Center, The Commission of the European Communities

The European Community is composed of 12 peoples who have decided to work together more closely in various forms of collaboration. As new problems are created, the Community has to find new methods to solve

them. I should like to illustrate some of the ways in and means by which some of the EC research programs have been put into action. I will select some specific cases, not necessarily the largest, that are, in my view, original. These forms of support were developed to cope with the new situation in Europe.

Living in the United States, you possibly do not appreciate the advantage of living in a very large country. This advantage is that almost all of the very broad spectrum of modern science and technology is covered, which means that when a young man or woman in the United States is interested in a certain scientific or technological career, it is quite normal that he or she may take a bachelor's at Harvard and then go on to Cal Tech or whatever. All of the resources of a large, highly scientific, industrialized nation are available, so he or she can pursue this career in science, working in a center of excellence.

In Europe there are, of course, many centers of excellence which are quite as good as any in America. But there is a tendency to fragmentation. Everybody speaks broken English, so language is perhaps not the problem, but there is a more subtle side to language, and sometimes we find in Brussels that the same word does not mean the same thing for people from 12 different countries. Thus, there is a problem of understanding. There is also a problem of structures, and there is the problem of different traditions.

On the other hand, there are many cases, started almost spontaneously, where it was the explicit wish of scientists and industrialists to work together in order to go beyond frontiers. What the EC Commission does is to make such work easier. Of course, there is a tendency to become bureaucratic. I do not think the EC Commission is any less open to such dangers than any other institution. But, being relatively young, the EC Commission has not had centuries or millennia available to develop a bureaucracy. We are under tight control by our member states and our parliament. We do make mistakes, but, generally, they are spotted rather quickly. There is a joke that is popular in Brussels, though maybe it sounds strange in Washington: EC Commission civil servants say that working for the Commission is like being a man who has no wife, yet has 12 mothers-in-law. We have to be very virtuous.

One of the mechanisms we have developed is a program to facilitate interactions among multiple research programs in different member states. This is really a combination of bottom-up and top-down. It represents a small fraction, less than 6 percent, of current resources, and it is not earmarked a priori for any specific scientific domain or technological goal. It is, instead, open to new ideas, and sometimes new ideas grow at the border, not only between disciplines, but also between countries.

Of course, we have had to put together a good system for selecting the proposals that come in. The principle of the system is quite simple. We

have put together rather a good network of referees based on personal recommendations made by individuals and their home institutions. We select proposals on the basis of scientific merit as assessed by these referees. All proposals must be transnational. As a rule of thumb, and in the name of what we have come to call ''practical subsidiarity,'' I would say that when collaboration involves two nations, then Europe's traditional and highly developed bilateral systems—the Royal Society, the Von Humboldt Stiftung, and so on—provide excellent methods.

But when we have three or more bodies, interactions are difficult, even in chemistry. So we in the Community provide a system—I would not want to use the word "catalyst" improperly—to bring people together. Indeed, over the years there have a number of very interesting projects that were proposed by the scientists themselves. They developed fruitfully at a European level because the necessary expertise at the required level of excellence could not be found in any one single place. We have had collaboration between people from the Max Planck with people from Cambridge or Oxford or Bonn or Pisa. This has developed into a very useful and popular system, and I think we owe its success to the fact that quite a few highly placed and responsible scientists from all over Europe thought it was altogether worthwhile to invest some of their time and energy in helping the Commission to organize it.

This program was a typical European solution to a European problem. We now wish to extend it further, but with greater emphasis on training for research by doing research at the postdoctoral level. The motive for this is a considerable shortage of skilled people in Europe. The best way forward is not so much for different disciplines and industries to poach in each other's hunting grounds, but for Europe as whole to produce more postdoctoral researchers. And we are proposing a system designed to do exactly that, which will perhaps be extended beyond the borders of Europe.

The second form of action, which I mention because we found it interesting, has to do with the many small and medium enterprises that we have in Europe. These small firms need a Common Market sometimes even more than large firms do, for large firms generally know how to find their way around continents. Sometimes a small company in an advanced area has a greater need for access to a large market because it must amortize the investments it makes in research right away. If it is specializing in a field, it must be able to sell in its own field to a wide market.

Research can prepare for that in terms of new knowledge and so on. Following up on a suggestion from German industrialists, we established that there were many small firms that do not have the capacity or the wish to set up their own research laboratories, but that have common problems in the so-called generic technologies. They may be interested in some aspects of materials science, in corrosion, and so on. Our role perhaps is to

act as sponsors: sometimes we provide a secretariat; sometimes we provide suggestions. The networks then form networks. In Europe now there is even an institution with a legal status, recognized in all countries. Together, the companies propose a research plan that is then carded out by research institutes or by universities, wherever the best skills are to be found throughout the Community. This proved an interesting scheme. We call it cooperative research. It is very flexible, and the results are quite encouraging.

There is also the problem of large installations in Europe. There are several that are owned entirely by one country and some that are shared by two, three, four, or five; we have all possible combinations. Sometimes there are excellent scientists or engineers from a smaller country who are interested in having access to those large installations. In general, there is good will, and the managers of installations are happy to receive good scientists from other countries. But sometimes there are technical limitations to this.

We have a program called Access to Large Installations, which has recently completed a three-year testing phase. In this program joint proposals come from the managers of large installations and potential users. For instance someone from Spain or Italy may wish to go and work in a large facility in another country. Several such requests are put together, and a common proposal is made by the administration of the facility and the potential users. After selection by peer review in competition with other proposals, a multiyear contract is signed, and the large installation managers then know they can count on a certain amount of support for a certain number of years in return. Thus, persons who normally would not have access to the installations now do.

This program has been set up in a very flexible way, without the creation of any new structures, and it seems to be working fine. The problem is that the demand is very great, especially from young people at the postdoctoral level, who have studied what can be done with these advanced technologies or tools for research, but who do not have them in their own countries. In the past these people could have encountered more difficulties in obtaining access to such facilities in other countries.

Another point again concerns large projects. The Community is actually running one such project on magnetically confined thermonuclear fusion. All efforts in this field in Europe are combined. We designed, built, and now operate the largest existing machine in the field. The machine is in Britain, but its first director was German and the current director is French, so it is very international.

I mention this because the EC fusion program is an interesting example in terms of science management. We all know that there are excellent instances of successful management of large projects that, especially when they are energy intensive, have to be located in one place; the European Laboratory for Particle Physics (CERN) probably is one of the best exam-

pies. So when I praise another model, I do not mean to say that the model at CERN was wrong. Indeed, it has been excellent, and it was probably the best for that type of approach. But, for fusion, we developed another model that I call the "planetary system." About half of the resources are centered in the large common machine, which is the Joint European Torus (JET). But there are three or four very important machines at different locations that are part of the program, and staff from all of the member states move freely from one center to another. All contribute very tangibly to the success of the central machine.

This system has proved very useful, for, especially in a project like fusion, which lasts for generations of scientists, it is very important that we keep in the various participating countries a nucleus large enough to attract good people. We have to see this in a dynamic way, and we must ensure that we do not cut our connections with the roots, which are the bright young people that may come into it.

This is a model that was successful in Europe and that perhaps could be used in some cases for larger multinational projects. It is also an excellent example of applied subsidiarity.

Question: Obviously, one of the underlying driving motivations behind the programs in the European Community, as well as in the individual countries in Europe, is economic growth and competitiveness of your industry. Am I correct that that is the major thrust of the R&D program of the European Community?

Vice-President Pandolfi: Yes. The language of the treaty, which is our parliamentary law, is extremely clear. In Article 130F the European Community has the objective of strengthening the scientific and technological basis of European industry and encouraging it to become more competitive at international levels.

There are two ways to support European industry or, generally speaking, to support industry everywhere in the world. The first way is to support directly the activities of the industry in order to develop new products in a way directly linked to the needs of the industry vis-a-vis the market. Our interpretation of the treaty is that it excludes this kind of direct support.

There is a second way to support industry, and this way has three elements. The first element is a limitation of precompetitive R&D activities, determined by the international common opinion of what is precompetitive. This is a strict limitation. Member states are not willing to give the Commission the authority to cross this line of demarcation. The second element is that we are wedded to the transnationality of our program, which makes it impossible for us to support directly an individual industry because

we need a combination of the various subjects. The third element of our interpretation is based on what the treaty says about the scientific and technological basis of European industry. It is essential for us to maintain the presence of the Community in basic research. When some project is submitted to us, we make sure that a certain fraction of basic research exists in our initiative.

The combination of these three elements allows us to maintain an appropriately scientific character in our research activity. Even though we are a Common Market, with an economic origin, we support a good background for our industry instead of supporting specific objectives.

Question: Dr. Fasella, is the planetary model that you talked about spontaneous or planned?

Professor Fasella: It was developed by the persons who actually did it. All persons involved in magnetically controlled nuclear fusion had first formed a club; then the club became one of the committees. When the program was launched, those persons in the club were appointed by the member states as their representatives. Working together, they found this was the best solution.

We received a very interesting proposal in a quite different field and on a smaller scale from a group of researchers around the Max Planck Institute of Plant Development in Cologne. They had already participated in our biotechnology program. Then, when we started again some seven or eight years ago, at first we could not find a molecular biology plant, for that was a relatively weak field in Europe. Many of the research groups became involved with the institute in Cologne, which is, I think, the largest in Europe of its kind. It therefore seemed reasonable that rather than having a number of small bilateral contracts, these groups could form a sort of rota program. They came to Mr. Pandolfi to see if he thought it was politically acceptable, and they have now proposed a plan that combines six laboratories, which are rather tightly connected or which are more loosely connected. Probably, the management would be done in Cologne. This of course is on a much smaller scale, at least for the time being, than the other one. But it is also what you would call a planetary program.

Question: How are the events in eastern Europe of the last couple of years entering into thinking about policy on science and technology within the European Community?

Vice-President Pandolfi: First of all, there is no doubt about the key role of science and technology in building a new architecture in central and eastern Europe. Science and technology, for example, are key elements in easing the transition to a market economy. Science and technology also are essential in building up an integrated continental scientific community in Europe.

But, at present, we have a great number of difficulties in rapidly establishing a network of contacts and initiatives between the European Community and central and eastern European countries. A typical problem is the difficulty of finding the right term of reference, because there are continuous changes in public powers there.

We have identified two main ways to implement cooperation in science and technology despite the difficulties. One is to use some part of the resources of the outreach program already in place with Poland and Hungary. So far, a small part of this $1.2 billion program is dedicated to establishing the basis for cooperation in science and technology.

Second, the Europe parliament has introduced a new budget appropriation for a small program called "Let's Go East." We are trying to put it into operation immediately, starting with some very pragmatic initiatives. Beginning next year, 1992, and in the subsequent year, this small first program is dedicated to collaboration in science and technology.

One of our main objectives for this year is to define the right initiatives. For example, we have promoted better cooperation between these countries so that together they can cooperate with the European Community. Our commitment to this program is very strong.

Question: Mr. Pandolfi, you focused on scarcity of human resources and identified the falling birth rate as the main cause. I wonder if that is the only cause. Also, the United States has depended very heavily on immigration of people from Europe and Asia to expand its resources in science and engineering. Are we competing for the same resources in the long haul?

Vice-President Pandolfi: No doubt this is one of the crucial points for the future of our scientific community. There is a certain difference between the problem in the United States and the problems in Europe. I have seen that here you are focusing on precollege education to improve the effectiveness of the educational system. In comparison, the situation in Europe is not so bad at this level; our difficulty is at the college level.

Professor Fasella: The expected decline of the work force from 1985 to 2025 is part of a study done by the industrial research committee that advises the EC Commission. The number of students rose for a certain period after the Second World War because the fraction of the population that went through a higher education increased. Now that has leveled off. Moreover, there is a certain trend away from the hard sciences toward perhaps softer ones or more attractive ones.

Vice-President Pandolfi: Another point is the problem of movement from one area to the other. This is one of the main problems for Europe. It is expected that there will be a certain tendency of scientists or young researchers in central and eastern European countries to move toward western Europe or to the United States. This is the historical trend.

Our view of that is that we must have a concerted action to develop a common approach to the problem. For example, in some of the member states of Europe, there is a certain reluctance to support our program for human capital mobility because of the phenomenon of the brain drain. It is a typical attitude in Ireland; they are afraid that this program would produce not an improvement in their scientific community but, on the contrary, some additional difficulty.

I think the time is right to find an appropriate international forum to discuss how to avoid the negative consequences of this mobility and how to combine our efforts as far as the European Community is concerned. We are ready to put on the table our problem with human capital mobility and to discuss how to work together with you.