After the ERA, a European Education Area?
Dutch MEP Elly Plooij-van Gorsel, author of a report on the European Commission's proposal for a European Research Area (ERA), has outlined to CORDIS News the measures, including the construction of a European Education Area, which she believes are necessary for the establishment of the ERA. Mrs Plooij's proposal of a European Education Area has already gained much support, both within the European Parliament's committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, and from Achilleas Mitsos, Director General for Research at the European Commission. 'Next to the European Research Area, there should come a European area for higher education. I think that education is still the responsibility of the Member States, it's the subsidiarity principle [...] but if we want to become the most competitive economy of the world in 10 years, and we want a knowledge-based economy, then it is impossible not to make also a European Education Area,' Mrs Plooij told CORDIS News in an exclusive interview. The realisation of such a project is the only way in which to foster the necessary quality of researchers throughout the EU, said Mrs Plooij, and the only way for researchers to gain acceptance at every level. More cooperation is also necessary at other levels, she declared, for example in the areas of researcher mobility, the opening up of national research programmes and at the level of research funding bodies. 'On the level of science institutes and research funding bodies, there is hardly any cooperation. There is no institution for that, and that means that there is no complementarity between national research and European research,' said Mrs Plooij, who added that we need to rethink this situation and go a step further, forging cooperation at the intermediate level, thus enabling scientists to take part in other Member States' research programmes. The MEP does however accept that there are barriers to this enhanced cooperation, for example different payment systems and different pension systems, which are particularly problematic in terms of mobility. Mrs Plooij also highlights the prevalence of national interests where research funding is concerned: 'Many Member States are very keen on spending their money in their own countries. There is a real barrier on the bureaucratic level.' Flexibility, important on account of the changing and progressive nature of science and technology, is another issue which needs to be addressed, asserts Mrs Plooij. She welcomes the fact that several Member States have proposed more flexibility in the Sixth Framework programme, but stresses that it was the Member States themselves who 'killed' the flexibility in the Fifth Framework programme, by insisting on specified key actions with fixed budgets. 'It's nice to hear that they [Member States] want more flexibility and I hope they will stick to that principle because we wanted that before,' said Mrs Plooij. The subject of added European value should not be neglected in the Commission's plans for European research, Mrs Plooij told CORDIS News. This is an area which could be addressed by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in her opinion. The JRC has undergone a positive transformation in the last few years, she said, 'but still the purpose of the JRC is not very clear to the European added value.' This should be confronted in FP6, the MEP continued. Mrs Plooij would like to see the JRC having a more prominent role in the promotion of European research, and suggests the creation of a virtual exhibition or website, where awareness of European research could be raised amongst the European population, and where 'the importance of European research for our economy and our quality of life' could be emphasised. Such a service could also facilitate student and researcher exchanges. Perhaps surprisingly, Mrs Plooij, who is not from one of the big EU Member States, is not too concerned about the future role of smaller countries in European research. Concern has been expressed by others on account of the variable geometry principle, which is set to be exercised more frequently in the future, and also because of the Commission's proposal to focus more on larger projects in the Sixth Framework programme. 'Quality is always the first criteria in the framework programme [...]. In small countries there is quality. They can also work together in projects, centres of excellence and in variable geometry,' said Mrs Plooij. She did however express some concern at the abandonment of smaller projects: 'There is no scientific evidence that large projects will be more efficient or have more success than smaller projects, so there is no reason to go directly, going from the Fifth to the Sixth Framework programme, from small to large. So I would love to see one or two test cases, starting for example in the ICT (information and communication technology) fields and life science fields [...]. Never throw away your old shoes before you have new ones,' added Mrs Plooij. A new proposal, outlined in Mrs Plooij's report, which would see continued support for smaller projects is 'orphan' programmes, described as fields of research without the backing of large lobbies, but which promise European added value. Questioned on the subjective nature on added European value, Mrs Plooij asserted that we should stop duplicating research that is already being done in the United States. If Europe promotes its strengths, European added value will be created, she said. The MEP would like to see orphan projects in the development of new drugs, where financial gains are not necessarily large, but the research is still highly important. Is the ambition behind the ERA proposal realistic? 'Yes and no', says Mrs Plooij. There are still barriers, 'but it is better than having no ambitions.'