Transcript INTERNATIONAL vs. NATIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMMES – …
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