Report gives overview of science and society research in FP6
The Science and Society programme of the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) has given new impetus to the relationship between scientists and citizens in Europe. Under FP7, more must be done however to broaden the scope of the programme and better coordinate its activities with those taking place at national level. These are just some of the conclusions of a new report from the European Commission assessing the programme's achievements and weaknesses. Science and society activities have been represented in the EU research framework programme for several years now, but it was not until FP6 that these activities were given a thematic area of their own. And if the figures for participation provided in the report 'Mid-term assessment of Science and Society activities 2002-2006' are anything to go by, it would appear that the decision to do so has paid off. A total 916 partners from across the EU took part in some 150 projects, which were funded to the tune of €71.5 million. This was distributed among five thematic areas: science education, including scientific culture and Descartes prizes (€24.3 million); science communication (€5.3 million); scientific advice and governance (€4.7 million); ethics (€24.9 million); women in science (€12.1 million). As might be expected, participants were predominately from the public sector, with higher education institutions and research institutes accounting for 41% and 23% respectively of project partners. The involvement of the industrial sector was far more modest, ranging from 0.5% to 6% across the five thematic areas. In terms of the geographic distribution of partners, four large Member States, namely France, Germany, Italy and the UK account for the largest share of participation (45%). But the report also finds that new Member States were fairly well represented (with the exception of 'scientific advice and governance' and 'ethics'). Several projects also involved non-European partners, which the report says provided the programme with a valuable international dimension. Aside from the achievement of attracting a large, diverse number of participants, the report suggests that one of the main successes of the programme has been its ability to provide a European dimension to the issues surrounding the relationship between scientists and citizens. It goes on to claim that the programme has made important contributions to enlarging the circle of communities involved in such kinds of activities at national level, especially in new EU Member States. It points to the conferences and fora organised within the framework of the thematic priority, which have helped ignite large participatory debates on, and raise awareness in Europe of, some key issues such as the role of women in science, ethics and scientific culture. The Descartes prizes have also made a significant contribution towards highlighting the importance of European cooperation for achieving excellence in research and science communication activities. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement, and the report makes several recommendations on how the programme can be taken forward under FP7. One suggestion is to broaden the scope of the programme, especially in the areas of ethics and gender, which, as the report points out, could be addressed in other areas such as governance and science education. Foresight activities could also be included in the programme, for example in relation to the future of the European Research Area (ERA). An example could be a study on the impact of a new dialogue between the scientific community and the public on the future evolution of scientific communities. Another area which could benefit from a broader range of activities is scientific culture. The report points to the growing gap between science and other dimensions of culture (philosophy, arts and literature), and suggests that launching activities at the border between science and these other domains might contribute towards better understanding and perhaps closing this gap. The report also recommends better coordination between national activities and those funded under the framework programme. In this perspective, it recommends reappraising the role of CREST, the Scientific and Technical Research Committee, and introducing new mechanisms in order to increase commitment to relevant policy developments from the actors involved in coordination activities. Greater emphasis should also be placed on engaging national funding agencies and policy-making institutions to ensure planned, complementary and greater coherence. A renewed emphasis on developing participative methodologies and specific indicators would be of benefit in this respect, say the authors of the report.