A better future for European science?

T he gross domestic product of the European Union (EU) bloc is roughly equivalent to that of the United States, but the EU invests $60 billion less a year (around 33%) in R&D than does the United States. This disparity exists even in the slightly larger group of countries that soon will make up the EU research system (a total of nearly 30 countries). Part of this differential is due to less investment by European enterprises and part to less public funding of science. To ensure that Europe can remain competitive and participate in burgeoning global scientific collaborations, it is imperative that the EU both increase investment in R&D and renew its collaborative mechanisms. Looking at Europe as a whole, the administration of science and technology has been a loose conglomerate of individual European countries in combination with that promoted by the European Commission (EC) in Brussels. Most of the collaborative structures in European science [such as CERN, the European Molecular Biology Organization, European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), European Science Foundation, and European Synchrotron Radiation Facility] were established in the early 1970s. Since then, Europe has developed a single market and a single currency and is working toward a single defense policy and fiscal harmonization, but the organization of science has been trailing behind and is fragmented and, therefore, duplicative—the benefit of joining forces is not being maximized. Europe needs to move beyond this limited set of mechanisms for coordinating the research effort. The imperatives of increased competitiveness and collaboration must be nurtured at the European level. The ESF Collaborative Research Programmes (EUROCORES) is attempting to do this by bringing together national collaborative research funding in a coordinated manner to address new and important topics. A multinational approach is unavoidable, but it will profit from a common call for proposals and the establishment of a network of funders. The aim of this and other initiatives is to enhance collaboration between countries and their national and international research organizations (as we have seen in the case of EMBL and its associated structures[*][1]), lubricated by the EC, as the key for the construction of a true Europe of science. In an attempt to address these issues, Commissioner Philippe Busquin, in charge of research in the EC, is promoting the establishment of a European Research Area (see ). The positive reaction to this initiative from ministers for research of EU countries suggests that science in Europe will not be allowed to fall behind. Indeed, a recent debate in Lisbon, hosted by Portuguese Minister Jose Mariano Gago, between the research ministers, Commissioner Busquin, and a number of Nobel laureates and representatives from European scientific (academic and industrial) organizations concluded that despite the present reasonably good health of science in Europe, further support is needed, in terms of both political commitment and increased funding for basic research. Further support has come from the European Council (Heads of Governments) summit in Lisbon in March 2000, which, as well as endorsing the EC's initiative for better integration and coordination of research activities at national and EU levels, also noted that the provision for an EU-wide broadband network, facilitating researcher mobility, and retaining high-quality research talent within Europe are key issues that must be addressed within a short time. It is clear that whether in Europe, the United States, or any other part of the world, scientists need new and better mechanisms for collaboration. It is also clear that the mechanisms for international and intercontinental collaboration are not in place. The advent of new technologies in communications, particularly the new broadband capabilities, is making global collaboration increasingly easy, and it seems likely that such collaborations will ultimately become the norm. This requires new ways of conducting research, such as remote control of experiments and interaction with large dispersed databases and models. It also requires new administrative mechanisms that are unbureaucratic, efficient, free of political objectives, and operate between research organizations. The responsibility for developing these mechanisms is firmly on the shoulders of the science administrators and the politicians. The solutions that the EU develops for breaking down its own boundaries to research may help provide a model for the rest of the world. [1]: #fn-1

Casting the minimal progress of European Union (EU) research policy cooperation since the 1960s as a puzzle, Banchoff (2002) argues that there are three paths of institutional resistance: normative, formal rule-based, and in practice. To start, he contributes the reluctance of national authorities to cede competence to the European-level as explanatory for the lack of successful reform. Continuing, and building on new institutionalist insights, Banchoff maintains that the implementation of successive Framework Programmes (FPs) since the mid-1980s generated an institutional inertia hindering possible changes. He singles out the FPs’ main beneficiaries as particularly resistant against altering the function of European research policy from being a distributive mechanism (funding) to a coordinative one (policy). Concluding his analysis with the then European Research Area (ERA) initiative, Banchoff projects that its ‘concrete shape’ would likely embody the change-resistant features associated with this sector.KeywordsEuropean UnionCouncil DirectivePolicy SectorLateral StrategyResearcher DirectiveThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Research council hopes

The use of English as lingua franca in mainland Europe’s higher education and research sectors has rapidly expanded over the past several decades. Despite these expansions, critics claim that there is a conspicuous absence of European Union (EU) language policy concerned with the use of English as a “contact” language in education and research contexts. This study attempts to assess these claims by conducting a comparative analysis of English as a lingua franca discourse in the policy declarations and communications of two EU actors with remits for higher education and research – the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the European Research Area (ERA). Using methods that draw on critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics, I compiled specialised corpora consisting of the policy documents published by the EHEA and the ERA over the past twenty years. I then used the corpus analysis tool Sketch Engine and a reference corpus of general EU discourse to assess how often and in what ways language policy was considered. The analysis reveals intra-institutional conflicts in how language is conceptualised between policy actors and across policy portfolios in the EU. The findings also confirm the absence of explicit discourse on the use of English in academic and research contexts over the institutional lifetimes of two actors with remits for these sectors. The study highlights the persistence of a “top-down/bottom-up” conceptual gap at the heart of EU language policymaking regarding English as a lingua franca in European higher education and research.

Studying the general conditions in the current European Union (EU) regulative and ethical framework together with a critical analysis of research experiences in various EU countries shows that difficulties, ambiguities or even inconsistencies exist in the way ethical and juridical challenges are being dealt with in transnational research. Diverse domestic implementations of EU regulations or international guidelines may hinder transnational research and bring about inequalities in the level of protection throughout different countries. This chapter presents some forthcoming challenges and proposes steps to solutions, regarding for example communication, secondary use and exchange of data. One major proposition to achieve more consistency in the research conditions nationally and internationally is that an ethics committee at the level of the ‘European research area’ could be envisaged, mainly focusing on transnational research. Analysis and evaluation of different cases in different situations would build up extensive knowledge and experience that may serve as an inspiring starting point for a well informed societal debate. This way, gradually, more consistency in the handling of study proposals and increased transparency in decision making might be reached, lifting the daily practices and the protection of both individual and community interest to a higher level of meeting up with ethical concerns in transnational research.

It has become increasingly evident that a more concerted strategy is necessary to address the human resources needs of the European Research Area (ERA). Such a strategy should establish realistic goals and develop clear methods for their implementation. The present Report addresses the Policy Options that the Expert Group 'Realising a single labour market for researchers' (EG Researchers) has identified in order to ensure more attractive careers for researchers and to progressively eliminate the obstacles hampering their mobility. We have chosen an architectural image in order to highlight the complementary nature of the components of the tetrahedral structure that we have conceived. For each of the proposed four cornerstones we identify the obstacles and hindrances that, in our view, continue to hamper the development of ERA, and provide some 'case studies' in order to illustrate our concerns. We then provide Policy Options, some of which have already been successfully tested and could therefore be generalised almost immediately, others could be implemented progressively. The recommendations in this report are addressed to all bodies in receipt of public funds for research. This is meant to include the funding agencies who disburse funds and those who receive them, in the public and private sector (universities, research centres and companies). All must take individual and collective responsibility for the implementation of the recommendations; in our opinion they will determine whether Europe does indeed become a single labour market for researchers. We believe that the European Commission can take the lead by implementing the recommendations in the Seventh Framework Programme.

The Sixth Framework Programme (FP6)2002-2006 is the European Unions' main instrument for research funding in Europe. FP6 serves two main strategic objectives: to strengthen the scientific and technological bases of industry and to improve competitiveness and innovation in Europe through the promotion of increased co-operation and improved coordination between relevant actors at all levels. Within FP6, the Network of Excellence (NoE) instrument was developed to strengthen excellence on a particular research topic by tackling the fragmentation of European research. One such NoE, formed in 2004, is CO2GeoNet, which is made up of 13 research organizations from across Europe who have extensive experience and expertise in the study of the geological storage of CO2. The principle goal of this consortium is to contribute to and form a durable integration of research into CO2 geological storage, in the European Research Area, as a means of mitigating anthropogenic mass loading of this greenhouse gas to the atmosphere and ocean, while there is continued use of fossil fuels.

Explanations of the failure of integration are a natural preserve of intergovernmentalism. It is not difficult to blame the failure to integrate on recalcitrant states — and they are in fact often largely responsible. This article examines how European institutions can impede deeper integration. It sets out an analytical framework that distinguishes three pathways of institutional resistance to change, and applies the framework to the case of EU research policy. In the face of American scientific and technological superiority, European leaders have long articulated the goal of better research policy co‐ordination. But distinct national research policies persist; no significant supranational integration has taken place. The institutionalization of EU research policy in the framework programme (FP) — a funding stream for researchers alongside much larger national programmes — is part of the reason. Since the 1980s, increasingly large and complex programmes have absorbed the administrative and political energies of the Commission and generated clienteles attached to the status quo. European institutional legacies, and not simply national interests, have undercut efforts to create a ‘European Research Area’ marked by the better co‐ordination and integration of national policies.

Framework Programme spurs joint statement

Greek science: hope in crisis

Research in the EU: better times to come?

The article analyzes the reasons for the current state of development of the system of professional higher education of Ukraine; analyzed the global challenges of the beginning of the 21th century for the air defense system of Ukraine; and providing insights into international best practice of using external management models in higher education. On the basis of system approach, the analysis of a range of international conceptual, analytical and statistical documents as well as methods of empirical research, the effects of modern challenges on reforming the higher education system have been explored. An emphasis is made on the need to build an attractive and competitive system of professional higher education in Ukraine that will be integrated into the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the European Research Area (ERA). The key directions to respond to challenges are offered: 1) ensuring the constitutional rights of citizens to free professional higher education on a competitive basis and equal access to high-quality professional higher education; 2) reorganization of the system of management of professional higher education, red tape reduction, decentralization, ensuring the autonomy and responsibility of higher education institutions; 3) the transformation of universities into centers of independent thought that are able to prepare professionals and generate ideas for accelerated modernization of the country; 4) ensuring fair competition between higher education institutions as a guarantee of high quality of professional higher education; 5) establishing an appropriate linkage between the labor market and the system of professional higher education; 6) integration of Ukraine’s professional higher education into the world and European education and research communities on the principles of human-centeredness, scientific substantiation, readiness for systemic changes, realistic strategy and step by step action; 7) ensuring fair competition in the educational services market through objective higher education quality assessment; 8) a combination of collegial and managerial approaches in higher education institutions management along with wide stakeholder engagement.

The integration processes, which take place in the world community in all spheres of the human activity have a great influence on the system of higher education. During this period, the common European education space is formed, which expressed particularly through harmonization of education standards, approaches, curricula, and specialties in different countries of the world. The open educational space provides for the increasing of student mobility and co-operation of university lecturers from different countries, which should help to improve the university graduates’ employment system and increase the status of these countries in the field of education. Academic mobility is one of the areas of the Bologna Process, which ensures the integrity of the European Higher Education Area and the European Research Area. At the same time the European space means not only the space of the states of the European Union. This space covers the territories of all member states of the Bologna Process. The course for the development of academic mobility is enshrined in almost all major documents governing the Bologna process. They note that the academic mobility of students, researchers and lecturers allows its participants to take advantage of European educational values (Prague Communiqué of Ministers of Education 2001), which forms the basis for the formation of the European Higher Education Area (Berlin Communiqué 2003), is an essential element of the Bologna process, which creates the new opportunities for personal growth, development of cooperation between people and institutions (London Communiqué 2007), etc. It is very important to find out how much our country is involved in the process of academic exchanges and international cooperation in the field of education, especially with European countries, as far as the international academic mobility is an important factor in the process of European integration.

While malaria research has traditionally been strong in Europe, targeted and sustained support for cooperative malaria research at EU level, namely through the EU's 6th and 7th Framework Programmes for research and technological development, FP6 (2002-2006) and FP7 (2007-2013), has boosted both impact and visibility of European malaria research. Most of the European malaria research community is now organized under a number of comprehensive and complementary research networks and projects, assembled around four key areas: (1) fundamental research on the malaria parasite and the disease, (2) development of new malaria drugs, (3) research and development of a malaria vaccine, and (4) research to control the malaria-transmitting mosquito vector. Considerable efforts were undertaken to ensure adequate participation of research groups from disease-endemic countries, in particular from Africa, with the long-term aim to strengthen cooperative links and research capacities in these countries. The concept of organizing European research through major strategic projects to form a "European Research Area" (ERA) was originally developed in the preparation of FP6, and ERA formation has now turned into a major EU policy objective explicitly inscribed into the Lisbon Treaty. EU-funded malaria research may serve as a showcase to demonstrate how ERA formation can successfully be implemented in a given area of science when several surrounding parameters converge to support implementation of this strategic concept: timely coincidence of political stimuli, responsive programming, a clearly defined - and well confined - area of research, and the readiness of the targeted research community who is well familiar with transnational cooperation at EU level. Major EU-funded malaria projects have evolved into thematic and organizational platforms that can collaborate with other global players. Europe may thus contribute more, and better, to addressing the global research agenda for malaria.

There are occasions when the European Union (EU) policies exasperate even the most convinced pro-European. A case in point has been the sixth Framework Programme of research (FP6, 2002–2006), where a panoply of biological and medical research has been dressed up as generally relevant for improving the European citizens' health, with essentially no place—except than in indirect, circuitous ways—for the research that simple common sense would link to health, namely public health research1,2. The new FP7 (2007–2013) is now starting3, endowed with more than € 53 000 million, an increase over FP6 conservatively estimated at 40% in real terms (estimates vary depending on how inflation and the actual years of spending are factored in). FP7 consists of four programmes: Cooperation , covering 10 … Correspondence: Professor Rodolfo Saracci, IFC-National Research Council, via Trieste 41, 56100 Pisa, Italy, e-mail: saracci{at}hotmail.com