ICT industry gives backing to EIT
The proposed European Institute of Technology (EIT) has been given the thumbs up by leaders of Europe's digital technology sector. In the second of three papers published in the year following the June 2005 launch of the European Commission's '12010 initiative' for jobs and growth, EICTA, the European information and communication technologies association, said that the EIT would help strengthen existing networks between the best universities, research institutes and industrial research development labs in Europe. According to EICTA, i2010 and other Commission initiatives seeking to boost Europe's performance in research and development (R&D) and innovation are much needed. 'Europe's problem is less the lack of new ideas but more the transformation of new ideas into innovation and global competitiveness, the availability of financial resources including Venture Capital, the provision of research- and innovation-friendly conditions and the entrepreneurial spirit that bridges the academic and industrial world,' reads the paper. The paper goes to say that unlike the US Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the EIT should not be created top-down; it must grow bottom-up from existing research communities. The latest Commission proposal for the EIT suggests a combined top-down and bottom-up approach to the selection process of EIT 'Knowledge Communities'. Knowledge Communities will be partnerships of teams and departments from universities and the business and research sectors, that will compete for research finding in innovative sectors over 10-15 years. According to EITA, the leverage of existing activities is the most sustainable and realistic way to obtain organic growth in a competitive environment. EICTA supports this push for competition, which it believes will fertilise growth. However, it underlined the need to respect the fact that universities may have taken decades if not centuries to develop. The EIT should therefore provide incentives to help universities sharpen their profiles and develop novel ways of cooperating with industry. However, for personnel, the paper finds fault with seconding people and resources from university departments and industrial labs, which it says is 'not particularly attractive.' It goes onto suggest that alternative models could be employed, such as awarding contracts, procuring or commissioning deliverables or even leasing resources from selected excellent departments of universities, institutes and industrial laboratories. The paper argues that the EIT should not be financed at the expense of the seventh Framework Programme (FP7). 'Given the regular echoes of support for the importance of knowledge and innovation by the EU institutions, it should be possible to find adequate funds for the EIT elsewhere in the EU budget,' reads the paper. It suggests that loans from the European Investment Bank could also contribute. Whatever the outcome of the proposed EIT, the paper calls on Member States to strive to strengthen the knowledge triangle of education, research and innovation for universities. It also refers readers to the influential expert Aho-group report on innovation in Europe as an effective blueprint for change through innovation and how to achieve this. It concludes by calling on Europe to follow the US, where 'universities have not achieved their strong position primarily through lavish funding or networks of cooperation over state borders. They excel through an open attitude to new ideas, a close cooperation with industry and an entrepreneurial spirit that encourages personal movement back and forth between universities and companies.'