Busquin and the business of research
Philippe Busquin should look exhausted. Since he first published the Commission communication 'Towards a European Research Area' in January this year, the European Commissioner for Research has travelled up and down the continent trumpeting his vision of the fundamental future European research policy. In the days before he meets CORDIS news, the Belgian Commissioner has travelled to Crete, to Geneva and back to Brussels, spreading the word and calling for feedback on the European Research Area (ERA) with almost missionary zeal. If he is tired he doesn't show it, as he reiterates the main message of his first communication as Research Commissioner. 'The problems of scientists tomorrow will be large problems linked with social issues and covering a lot of disciplines,' says the Belgian Commissioner. 'Science is now more global and each Member State is too small to tackle the major issues alone. We need to collaborate to move forward.' Pooling its resources in an ERA will give Europe a greater chance of success, says Busquin. 'If you look at Nature publications these days you see that there are sometimes 15 or 20 co-authors of different nationalities. This is a sign that at the scientific level sharing of expertise is already happening.' The past few months have seen increasing discussion of the format and content of the Commission's next framework programme, during which the ERA has rarely gone unmentioned. But the Commissioner is quick to clarify that the concept of an ERA is quite different to that of the Community framework programmes. 'The Fifth Framework programme already has some aspects of an ERA,' he says. 'For example, all the projects are at a European level and there is some emphasis on mobility of researchers. But it is not a European research area. The framework programme is a tool to achieve the aims of the ERA - remember, it only accounts for five per cent of public spending on research in the EU. For me, the ERA is a political concept between the Commission, Member States and intergovernmental institutions to give more coherence between all these institutions and to build a European scientific community with links with European industry.' After discussing the January communication at length with other Directorate-Generals and with the European Parliament and Council through inter-institutional consultation, Mr Busquin called for a public debate. 'The note has been widely circulated and all stakeholders have had the chance to make comments that are now integrated into the [new] communication,' says Busquin, referring to his second communication in an ERA, which lays down guidelines on how best to proceed to achieve it. The new communication is a honed down, more focused and succinct version of its predecessor. Weighing in at just 22 pages, it sets down the priorities needed to achieve an ERA and suggests how to beat out the first paths to successful collaboration in European research policy. A synopsis of the communication is given in CORDIS News (RCN 15589), but in essence it elaborates two main aims: - to strengthen coherence of research activities and policies conducted in Europe; and, - put research back at the heart of society. When asked if any points in his January communication provoked criticism, the Commissioner indicates this was not the case. 'It was broadly accepted. I haven't yet heard any negative remarks for the communication from 8 January. There are very few points which could be criticised. The difficult point is to put it into action. Everyone is very happy about the political idea and the concept, but now we have to take concrete steps.' To illustrate his point, the Commissioner describes how difficult it is to overcome the barriers to mobility of researchers in the EU. Differences in the laws and social aspects in the Member States present obstacles, such as variations in salaries and tax. Researchers' salaries vary hugely around the EU, with some of the lowest paid scientists in Portugal and the highest in Germany. This is to some extent related to the tax status, a problem which Commissioner Busquin is hoping to address, following the lead of the Belgian prime minister, Guy Verhofstad, who earlier this summer called for a special tax status for researchers moving from one country to another. This would be a politically difficult manoeuvre, on which the Commissioner would need to negotiate not with other research ministers but the Member States' chancellors. Yet Busquin remains determined. 'We must identify the difficulties and then make a common decision to move forward. It's not something we can do in one day. It's a dynamic.' But there are some sectors - particularly in 'Big science' where research is simply too expensive or risky for one country to carry out alone - which lend themselves easily to the concept. Indeed high level representatives from the aeronautics industry have already pledged to put the philosophy into practice, following a meeting in Brussels on 10 and 11 October (see RCN 15628). And the Commission is also stepping up collaborative efforts with the European Space Agency and the Russian space programme (see CORDIS Focus 159, RCN 15555). Now Mr Busquin is calling for the Member States to work together in 'open cooperation' to achieve a comprehensive European research strategy. 'It's in the interests of all people to have a critical mass, so open co-ordination permits this for research in many subjects. Because the sense is now more interdisciplinary and more global...we need to work in networks with the best teams in Europe.' So far, the Member States appear to be happy with the Commissioner's suggestion that the Commission should act as the central co-ordinator for the ERA, although he says there are some difficulties. 'All the Member States have national models for research policy and not that much money for their own research, so they will have difficulties opening up to other countries. But,' he adds, taking Finland as an example, 'it's already beginning.' Finland's research programmes are reviewed by non-Finns. 'It's a small country which accepts this opening and the results are good. Finland is very advanced. It has lots of industrial and scientific research and is also investing a lot, but the Finns are also opening up themselves to the judgement of other countries so it's a good example of benchmarking.' Mr Busquin has called for a major benchmarking exercise in the EU to compare the best practices in research and technological development in each country. The report is due to be published later this year and the Commissioner is looking forward to its results. 'Benchmarking will allow industry and people to compare different countries' levels of expertise and industry will realise where the good countries are,' he says. 'This could attract the best [researchers]. At CERN in Geneva I said we have to attract the best...in the world. Now it's the USA which seems attractive. Europe has possibilities also but they are much disseminated. But if you have a network of excellence in all areas you can give visibility to excellence in Europe and so you can attract the best scientific people in Europe.' In accordance with this line of thinking, the Commissioner wants to encourage more large-scale projects made up of clusters of smaller projects, 'moving from an approach based on individual projects to a broader approach.' The latest communication also calls for a more structured approach and longer term schemes (in excess of four years), which would be supported at both the EU and national level and taking into account the organic nature of research in practice. 'Long-term research projects are very dynamic. Over time, a project may produce interesting findings which the original team cannot work on because it's outside their field of expertise and another team will take over,' explains the Commissioner. 'It's not our objective to fund constantly certain research teams or structures. Our objective is to develop common projects. That's why proportionally speaking the European money has a larger effect. The objective is to have the European money being directly productive and to incite the collaboration of scientists and industry as well.' The Commissioner's plans for the immediate future are laid out in the October Communication and will involve steps to simplify the procedures and increase 'significantly' the size of projects in the Fifth Framework programme, by raising financial thresholds. This may be reflected already in the latest round of calls for proposals under the Information Society and Technologies and the Growth programmes (see RCNs 15627 and 15625 respectively). So far so good. But how does the Commissioner plan to put science back at the heart of European society and return the public's confidence in science and scientists? 'I am launching a series of actions in this domain as well. There will be a communication on science and society and the biosciences forum will bring together all stakeholders including citizens, the press, government organisations and scientists. We want to find a different dialogue between experts ad non-experts, both to make science more understandable for the citizen and try to encourage scientists to take stock of what the public thinks of them. It is not a one-way thing.'