INTERNATIONAL vs. NATIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMMES –

THE NEED OF SYNERGY

Jacek T. GIERLIŃSKI & Jerzy M. LANGER MSIST, Warsaw, Poland

Towards a European Research Area October, 19 – 21, 2005, Speyer, Germany

THE KEYNOTE TOPICS

• International collaboration – why? • A vision for Europe • Strategic objectives • Key actors • The problems and barriers – FP6 • Forthcoming initiatives – FP7 • What else should and could be done? • Conclusions

KEY CHALLENGES FOR EUROPE

• Health and longevity • Safety & security • Sustainable growth (environment, climate

changes, culture)

• The Asian growth– need for peaceful

coexistence

KEY STEPS

• Lisbon strategy - ERA • Barcelona target • Vim Kok’s report • Baroso - Lisbon revisited • Open Method of Coordination vs Union

regulatory power :

common aims and guidelines, indicators and best practices still valid

EUROPEAN R&D CHALLENGES

• Reinforcing excellence, especially in new,

fast-growing research areas

• Staying ahead in a world of growing

scientific and technological competition

• Linking science to technological innovation • Competing for talent • Encouraging greater investment

Frontier Research: The European Challenge,

HLEG, EC, Feb2005

NEW EUROPEAN RENAISSANCE

• Europe without top research and education cannot meet

the challenges of the XXI Century. And this top research cannot be achieved without a concerted R&D policy at both national and European levels.

• The EU members have a wealth of highly-qualified

scientists. So do the candidate countries. The brains Europe needs are there.

Ironically, Europe has no problem putting together excellent football teams consisting of players from several EU countries. Putting together excellent research teams seems much harder.

ROMANO PRODI, "AN ENLARGED EUROPE FOR RESEARCHERS", BRUSSELS, JUNE 2001

JOINT INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% EU 15 USA Japan Poland

source: 2nd European Report on S&T Indicators 1997 - EC

with the

USA JOINT PUBLICATIONS

1980-1995 with the

EU Hungary - 8 times Poland - 6 times Hungary, Poland 5 times

source: 2nd European Report on S&T Indicators 1997 - EC

MOBILITY BETWEEN PASCI AND EUROPE (IN %) 6, 1 13, 8 17, 6 6, 5 6, 7 6, 6 3, 1 6,0

JOURNAL Nature v. 433-5 Science v.307-8 Phys.Rev. B 71 June 2005 Phys.Rev. C 71 June 2005

Astroparticle

Physics v. 23 Papers analysed 487 426 108 HOW DO THEY WORK AND PUBLISH?

authors/ paper 7,86 ± 0,73 7,70 ± 0,43 3,99 ± 0,25 Institutions/ paper 3,42 ± 0,17 3,49 ± 0,15 2,26 ± 0,14 77 48 15,9 ± 6,6 23,5 ± 9,6 4,39 ± 0,88 4,67 ± 1,17

Courtesy Prof. A. K Wróblewski

BENEFITS FROM COLLABORATION

• Enhances effectiveness of research

1 + 1 ≥ 2

• Creates European added value:

- international competition - critical mass - reduced duplication

• Improves science sector in MS (e.g. Centres &

Networks of Excellence)

• Raises attractiveness of scientific career • Creates opportunities to participate in scientific

discoveries

KEY ACTORS OF A DIALOGUE

• Researchers • National governments &/or Research

Councils in MS

• The European Commission • International science organisations

NEED FOR CONCERTED ACTION

PROBLEMS WITH FP6 MARIMON REPORT

• Low success rate • Low participation in proposals (NMS) • Inadequate participation in mobility programmes

(NMS)

• Complex procedures • Current mechanisms not only support good to become

better, but also favour advanced to become even more advanced:

– may lead to creation of intellectual and innovation deserts - brain drain – both internal and external

FROM FP6 TO FP7 ISSUES

• Networks of Excellence: - involve predominantly scientists

- not attractive for industry - not attractive for scientists from low research intensive regions

• IPs, Technology Platforms and JTI: - driven by large industrial organisations (EU15)

- role of scientists (NMS) marginalized

• Marie Curie scheme (mobility): - NMS still not sufficiently attractive as host countries

- return grants urgently needed

EU-25 NETWORKS OF EXCELLENCE

FP6 - OVERALL RESULTS 14000 12000 10000

partners in submitted projects partners in retained projects success rate

30 25 20 8000 6000 4000 2000 15 10 5 0

AT BE DE DK EL ES FI FR IE IT LU NL PT SE UK BG CY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL RO SI SK TR

0

BARRIERS – EU15 / NMS

• Little knowledge of research capacities in

NMS

• Scarcity of links with science in NMS • Legislation and tax system renders

employment of EU nationals in some NMS unattractive

• Unsatisfactory financial conditions for

participation for researchers from NMS

BARRIERS - NMS

• Research community

– historical conditioning, research environment, societal aspirations

• Inadequate and neglected research

infrastructure - in need of modernisation

• Science administration

too centralised:

- dominant role of ministry - lack of science councils - dominance of public funding - lack of national mobility programmes

NMS ASSETS AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

• Researchers in NMS constitute a sixth of all

European researchers (about 200 k)

• NMS Cost benefit: They show comparatively

high productivity at lower labour cost

• NMS posses valuable (sometimes hidden)

assets that could be brought to ERA

Maximize collaboration and synergy to achieve “full” utilization of research potential of all member states

NMS ASSETS - STUDENTS 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 19 - 23 YEAR OLD YEAR STUDENTS

NMS ASSETS – SCIENCE LEVEL GDP per person in thousands US dollars David A. King, Nature 2004

DISCUSSION ON FP7 PARTNERS

• European Commission – DGs • Presidency • Member States - WRs, COREPERs • Advisory Bodies – EURAB, CREST, ESFRI • NGOs – ESF • Research communities • Competitiveness Council • European Parliament

NEW VISION FOR FP7

COLLABORATION IDEAS PEOPLE CAPACITIES

• Frontier research (creation of ERC) – a chance for NMS • Building and strengthening of research capacities in

convergence regions

• Research infrastructure with pan-European access • Proposal (Poland, Sweden) for European Social and

Environmental Platforms

POLISH POSITION ON FP7

• Ensuring a continuation of the thematic priorities and

a balance of “traditional” as well as “new” instruments of FP6

• Ensuring equal chances of access to FP funds for

research teams from the all member states

• Formulation of thematic priorities to accommodate

social and environmental challenges

• “Recognising a fundamental role of

basic research any progress of science, Poland fully endorses the proposed establishment of the European Research Council”.

for

FORTHCOMING INITIATIVES – FP7 Co-financed programmes

• Co-ordination and integration of national

research programmes (ERA-NET+, Art. 169)

• Opening of national grant schemes for

international participation:

- dissemination of best practices

- improving synergy - enhancing national systems - modernizing national research programmes

WHAT NEEDED FROM THE NMS PERSPECTIVE

• Continuation of Centres of Excellence

programs (FP5)

• Large facilities and international institutions

located in the NMS countries: cohesion and structural funds

• Incentives for trained young people to return

to their home base

• European Institute of Technology

CONCLUSIONS

  

Knowledge creation vital for modern society Collaboration enhances research activities The strength of NMS science sector is founded on the high quality of its human capital

Full utilization of research potential is a must