Rewarding young scientists

The EU Response to COVID-19: From Reactive Policies to Strategic Decision-Making.

THE FUTURE OF THE COMMON SECURITY DEFENCE POLICY AND A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

And the winner is … 20 years of excellence in research on allergic disease!

Early next year, the European Union (EU) plans to implement a major piece of legislation—about 1,200 pages in its current form—to replace 40 different laws regulating the use of chemicals across the member states. When the European Commission (EC) presented its first draft in May 2003 (EC, 2003), it immediately drew huge attention because of its far‐reaching consequences, not only economic but also on human health and the environment. If passed, the REACH legislation will require the chemical industry to provide information on the potential negative effects—most of which are still unknown—of a vast number of chemicals used throughout the EU. Not surprisingly, this has met with criticism from all quarters. The costs of obtaining this information, and the subsequent effects on the European chemical industry, are hotly disputed. > [REACH] immediately drew huge attention because of its far‐reaching consequences, not only economic but also on human health and the environment REACH dictates new rules on the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of CHemicals. It requires manufacturers and downstream users of chemicals to register their substances—if they are sold in the EU as isolated compounds or in preparations—either with a national regulatory authority or a central European Chemical Agency, which the EC plans to establish next year in Helsinki, Finland. Companies are required to submit a registration dossier for each product, listing possible adverse effects on human health or the environment. REACH also requires additional authorization for substances that the EC considers of “very high concern”: chemicals that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to the reproductive system; endocrine disruptors; or persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances. Producers or downstream users must perform a risk assessment to ascertain whether their product creates risks to human health or the environment, which social benefits it provides, and whether safer alternatives are available. If, on the basis …

The European Union Institutional Network on Anti-Fraud

The European Commission (EC) unveiled its Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies that would impose restrictions on European Union (EU) agriculture through targeted reductions in the use of land, fertilizers, antimicrobials, and pesticides. The proposal also pledges to use EC trade policies and other international efforts to support this vision of sustainable agri-food systems, suggesting intentions to expand the reach of the policy beyond the EU. To examine the economic implications of the proposal, we performed a range of policy simulations on several of the proposed targets using three progressively broader adoption scenarios of the EC’s initiative. Under all these scenarios, we found that the proposed input reductions affect EU farmers by reducing their agricultural production by 7 to 12 percent and diminishing their competitiveness in both domestic and export markets. Moreover, we found that adoption of these strategies would have impacts that stretch beyond the EU, driving up worldwide food prices by 9 (EU only adoption) to 89 percent (global adoption), negatively affecting consumer budgets, and ultimately reducing worldwide societal welfare by $96 billion to $1.1 trillion, depending on how widely other countries adopt the strategies. We estimate that the higher food prices under these scenarios would increase the number of food-insecure people in the world’s most vulnerable regions by 22 million (EU only adoption) to 185 million (global adoption).

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

The European Union (EU) has a considerable significance in economic diplomacy, by virtue of the size of the European Single Market and the role the EU and its Member States have played in the international economy order over many decades. The EU has played a key role in shaping the existing international economic organizations and the principles and norms according to which these operate. Its role has been one of first following the leadership of the United States, and then progressively sharing in the leadership of the international economy. But the role of the European Union remains complex due to the nature of a Union consisting of 28 Member States that must define a common preference and negotiate an agreed outcome that satisfies both its Member States and its partners in international negotiations. In terms of the two-level game metaphor discussed in Chapter 3 , the EU can clearly be seen as the Level II. The role of the EU also varies between issue areas, because the competence – or power – of the EU differs between them. Thus in trade the EU plays a more prominent role than in financial diplomacy. EU economic diplomacy is further complicated by the fact that, in addition to the need to reconcile often competing sector and Member State interests, there is the further dimension of EU-level institutions. Thus the interplay between the European Commission, the Council of Members (that represents Member States) and the European Parliament will also shape EU economic diplomacy. 1This chapter addresses two of the central questions concerning EU economic diplomacy. The first is: what role does the EU play in economic diplomacy? This involves the following subsidiary questions: just how significant is the EU? When does Europe enter into negotiations as the European Union and when as the Member States (or the EU and the Member States together)? And how does the EU reach decisions on its preferences and approaches to negotiations? The second question concerns the effectiveness of the EU. Here the question is really how effective is the EU in defining common preferences and representing thesein international negotiations? The further question of how effective the EU is in shaping outcomes is case dependent and can only be properly understood by detailed cases studies. This is because the outcome of any negotiation involves the other party to any negotiation and the dynamics of the negotiation concerned.

Futureintech is funded by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise as one of a range of initiatives to significantly lift enrolments in tertiary study in technology, engineering and science over the medium to long-term. Begun in 2003, Futureintech is an initiative of The Institution of Professional Engineers, New Zealand. Futureintech works directly with schools and industries to help ensure that technology, maths and science teachers have the right resources to inform students and inspire them to continue their study through to tertiary level. The approach is hands-on. Nine Facilitators work to engage industry support, and work with classroom teachers, careers advisors, students and their caregivers, within primary, intermediate and secondary schools throughout New Zealand. Futureintech Ambassadors play a major role as industry role models. Ambassadors are young technologists, scientists, and engineers who are trained as volunteers to work in classrooms alongside teachers and students to support the curriculum. Currently 235 are involved in a variety of initiatives throughout the country, assisting with projects, helping students work towards national qualifications, facilitating individual and class access to workplaces and offering personal contributions to career evenings. Futureintech works in close partnership with a wide range of organisations including the Royal Society of New Zealand, the New Zealand Institute of Food Science and Technology, and the New Zealand Computer Society and helps co-ordinate and promote science and technology- based educational schemes such as CREST, Bright Sparks and the Transpower Neighbourhood Engineers Awards. Futureintech Ambassadors mentor students involved in these projects, offering them an industry perspective. Futureintech also strongly supports Ministry of Education initiatives in the field, particularly the Growth and Innovation Framework Technology Education initiative to promote and support technology education at senior secondary. In Futureintech's Visiting Industry Professionals (VIP) Scheme, technology, engineering and science professionals are hosted by a university or polytechnic for up to three weeks. The aim of the Scheme is to encourage ongoing partnerships between tertiary institutions and technology- based industries, and to raise awareness of specific industry environments, areas of growth and career opportunities. Futureintech's website, www.futureintech.org.nz, is a key promotional tool for careers in technology, engineering and science, and a resource base for teachers, careers advisors, caregivers and students. Futureintech has also published a range of promotional material, including booklets targeting caregivers, and posters and brochures for classroom use, and regularly contributes articles to youth magazines, community newspapers and other media. The Project is monitored and evaluated by researchers at the University of Auckland and anecdotal evidence to date strongly suggests that the Project's approach is successful. All respondents rated Futureintech positively as a general initiative for supporting careers in technology, engineering and science in New Zealand. Monitoring and evaluation is in its final phase and will focus on continuing to gain a mix of quantitative and qualitative data from a range of sources to establish the impact of Futureintech within different sectors. The remaining three months will also focus on collecting post intervention data from case study schools.

The European Union (EU) has been struggling to find a shared course on African migration since the entry into force of the Schengen Agreement (1995). It has done so through two interrelated processes of negotiation. Firstly, parties have negotiated narrative frames about migration and, in particular, whether migration should be interpreted in terms of security or in terms of development. Secondly, they have negotiated internal and external migration policies , that is, how migration should be managed respectively inside the EU (based on cooperation between EU member states) and outside it (based on cooperation with third states). In times in which narrative frames increasingly shape policy negotiations, it becomes very important to analyse how policymakers negotiate narrative frames on migration and how these shape policy responses. However, such an analysis is still missing. This discussion paper investigates how European states and institutions have negotiated the relation between EU borders and African mobility between 1999 and the beginning of 2019. It focusses in particular on how the process of negotiation of migration policies has been interrelated with a process of negotiation of narrative frames on migration. It does so based on an analysis of EU policy documents from 1999 to 2019 and on interviews with representatives of European and African states and regional organisations. Two major trends have characterised related EU negotiation processes: migration-security narrative frames have strengthened national-oriented and solid borders-oriented approaches (and vice versa), and migration-development narrative frames have strengthened transnational-oriented and liquid borders-oriented approaches (and vice versa). Since 1999, the European Council has mostly represented security- and national-oriented approaches, and the European Commission has mostly represented development- and transnational-oriented approaches. The two competing approaches have always been interlinked and influenced each other. However, in the last years, security-oriented national and solid border approaches have gained prominence over development-oriented transnational and liquid border approaches. In particular, the Commission has progressively mainstreamed national objectives in its transnational actions and security concerns in its development measures. Prioritising security over transnational development has augmented inequalities, in particular at the expenses of actors with scarce political representation in Africa and the EU. Such inequalities include increasing migrant selectivity and wage dumping.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is still coping with challenges on the road to European integration. As the Stabilization and Association Agreement between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the European Union (EU) entered into force, the Bosnia and Herzegovina presidency chairman, in February 2016, in Brussels, submitted a request for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s membership in the EU to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, Bert Koender, a representative of the country that headed the Union in that time. The next step in this process is that the European Commission delivers a questionnaire after a country that wants to join the EU applies for EU membership to the Council of the EU; then the EU Council invites the European Commission to prepare an opinion on the membership application. The European Commission delivered the Questionnaire on Membership Requirements to the Bosnia and Herzegovina Council of Ministers. This is actually an analytic instrument for the EU Enlargement Policy used by the European Commission to assess the willingness of the State that has applied for membership to obtain candidate status and open accession negotiations with the EU, which is ultimately decided by the EU Council and European Council. The questionnaire contains a detailed list of questions that, with its structure, follows the structure of the criteria for EU membership, with the aim to provide a comprehensive insight into the political, legal, social, economic, and administrative system of the state that has applied for EU membership through its responses and evaluates its compatibility with the system and values that exist in the EU and the EU member states.

Taxing Services under the EU VAT and Japanese Consumption Tax: A Comparative Assessment of New EU Place of Taxation Rules for Services and Intangibles

February 28, 2013 marks the sixth international “Rare Disease Day”. On and around this day, hundreds of patient organizations from more than 60 countries and regions worldwide plan to host awareness campaigns in line with this year's theme, “Rare Disorders without Borders”. Public awareness of intractable and rare diseases has heightened in recent decades. Much progress has also been made worldwide, such as specific legislation to encourage discovery and development of orphan drugs in the United States (US), the European Union (EU), and some parts of Asia. However, there are still many gaps in knowledge with regard to therapeutic tools and strategies. Intractable and rare diseases cause patients substantial physical suffering, psychological despair, and economic hardships due to bleak therapeutic outcomes and the lack of practical support in everyday life. The features of intractable and rare diseases and the increasing number of types of identified diseases make these diseases an important public health issue and a challenge to medical care worldwide. The following are specific aspects of research on intractable and rare diseases that need to be promptly promoted. An International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code to promote the definition and classification of intractable and rare diseases Intractable diseases, or “nanbyo” (literally “hard-to-treat diseases” in Japanese), mainly refer to rare diseases that have resulted mostly from unidentifiable causes and/or a lack of clearly established or curative treatments. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), rare diseases are rare and often debilitating or even life-threatening diseases or conditions with a prevalence of 0.65–1‰. The conventional view is that rare diseases as a whole affect around 10% of individuals worldwide, but the definition and categorization of rare diseases differ slightly by region. In the US, rare diseases are defined as diseases that affect fewer than 200,000 Americans (prevalence of < 0.75‰), while stipulated prevalence rates in other regions are < 0.5‰ in the EU, fewer than 2,000 patients (prevalence of < 0.11‰) in Australia, fewer than 50,000 patients (prevalence of < 0.4‰) in Japan, fewer than 20,000 patients (prevalence of < 0.4‰) in South Korea, or a prevalence of < 0.1‰ in Taiwan. The current outlook for identification of a specific rare disease and estimation of the true burden of rare diseases is bleak given the lack of proper classification and coding of rare diseases. Currently, there is no special coding system for rare diseases. The current ICD code that is used in most countries is not suitable for rare diseases. The absence of a universally recognized coding system is an obstacle for reliable registration of patients in national or international databases, preventing assessment of the economic and social effects of rare diseases. Fortunately, the good news is that the European Rare Disease Task Force of the Health and Consumers Protection Directorate General of the European Commission has set up a working group to collaborate with the WHO on the ICD-10, and the group is considering all other existing classifications to provide the rare disease community with a uniform system. A revised ICD code is urgently needed to both promote the definition and classification of intractable and rare diseases and to obtain accurate epidemiological data on these diseases at the national and international levels. Specific legislation to encourage discovery and development of orphan drugs Currently, orphan drugs — the medicinal products intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of rare diseases — are a major facet of how rare diseases are dealt with. In the past few decades, many countries have realized that orphan drugs will not lead to substantial sales under normal market conditions because of the high costs and risks of drug development, insufficient knowledge of the pathophysiological mechanisms of rare diseases that the drugs diagnose or treat, and difficulties in conducting clinical trials with small patient populations and a small potential market. Therefore, specific legislation to encourage the discovery and development of orphan drugs was enacted in many countries and regions, including the US in 1983, Japan in 1993, Australia in 1997, the EU in 1999, Taiwan in 2000, and South Korea in 2003. Incentives include financial subsidies, market exclusivity, tax credits, fee waivers, fast track approval, and protocol assistance, resulting in substantial improvements in the treatment of patients with a range of rare diseases. While China is actively preparing to regulate and encourage the development of orphan drugs, it still lags far behind the US, the EU, Japan, and other countries and regions with orphan drug legislation. Evidence has shown that all of the incentives have successfully encouraged the development of new pharmaceutical products to treat rare diseases. Prior to 2010, 352 orphan drugs were approved in the US, helping an estimated 12 million Americans, compared to only 10 such drugs in the decade preceding the Orphan Drug Act (1983). Similarly, 720 drugs had received orphan drug designation from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and 63 designated orphan medicinal products have been authorized for marketing in the EU. Furthermore, data have shown that an average of 15 new orphan drugs are approved annually in the US and 10-12 new orphan drugs are approved annually in the EU. Thus, China and other countries without orphan drug legislation need to promptly establish domestic legislative regulations and incentives to encourage discovery and development of orphan drugs. Government-funded special biomedical research programs to enhance basic and applied research on intractable and rare diseases Biomedical research on intractable and rare diseases has provided insights into the pathologies of these diseases and revealed their underlying mechanisms. Such work may ultimately reveal possible avenues to therapeutics. Moreover, once biomedical research identifies suitable drug candidates and becomes more translational, it will garner industry attention, potentially leading to safe and effective orphan drugs. In Western countries, many research centers or projects have been established to support special biomedical research programs on rare diseases and development of orphan drugs, such as the Office of Rare Diseases Research (ORDR) established in the US in 1993 within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Rare Disease Task Force (RDTF) established in EU in 2004 within the European Commission Public Health Directorate. In Asian countries, biomedical research on intractable and rare diseases has made great advances in Japan due to the systematic Specified Disease Treatment Research Program established in 1972 with the support of the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare. As a result, special research programs and research grants from government sources to study 130 diseases increased to 10 billion Japanese yen in 2010. Recently, 214 diseases were designated for a second round of special research programs. In China, support for special biomedical programs on intractable and rare disease research comes mainly from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). Data showed that 366 projects (involving 32 rare diseases) were funded by the NSFC from 1999 to 2007 with total funding of 89.358 million RMB and annual funding of about 10 million RMB, accounting for just 1/10th of similar funding in the US. Special biomedical research programs that enhance basic and applied research on intractable and rare diseases would benefit patients through better diagnosis and more treatment choices. Government-funded special biomedical research programs need to be promptly implemented in China and other countries to promote research on intractable and rare diseases. Patients' advocacy organizations and disease registry networks to provide vast information on intractable and rare diseases In recent years, progress has been made in the dissemination of knowledge and information by established patients' advocacy organizations, such as the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) in the US and the European Organization for Rare Diseases (EURORDIS) in Europe, but the delay in diagnosis and treatment is still a huge challenge to cope with. A survey of 18,000 individuals found that 25% of patients waited for 5-30 years before being correctly diagnosed and 40% of patients were diagnosed incorrectly before they were correctly diagnosed. Furthermore, clinical studies on orphan drugs also face challenges due to the small size of the trial population and the fact that patients are often geographically dispersed. Disease registry networks need to be established to promote epidemiological and basic research and improve the clinical outcome for patients with intractable and rare diseases. In Western countries, some web-based resources, such as the Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network (RDCRN) in the US and the Orphanet in Europe, have been established in order to facilitate collaboration on clinical outcomes and to share accumulated experience so that patients with intractable and rare diseases are not delayed access to orphan drugs. More patients' advocacy organizations and disease registry networks need to be promptly established to facilitate interaction among patients, clinicians, researchers, the pharmaceutical industry, and governmental bodies with the ultimate goal of promoting intractable and rare disease research worldwide. (February 28, 2013)

After the World War II, the significance of the regional development has risen dramatically, and development agencies concept has been mostly used as a development model. Development agencies generally aim to provide and maintain economic, social and cultural development in their regions by supporting new ideas and projects which are overwhelmingly efficient and effective in the development process. In European Union (EU), funds in the joint pool are allocated to the projects through development agencies. Regional development agencies were established in Turkey within the framework of EU cohesion policies. Projects supported by these agencies have begun to create a concrete step for regional development. In this study, firstly, the development projects of 27 EU member states between the years 2000-2011 will be scrutinized. Secondly, a comparative analysis will be conducted within the terms of projects and sectors in partnership by analyzing the (2007-2011) term projects of 26 Turkish regional development agencies. In this study, website of Turkish regional development agencies and European Commission will be taken basis to assess an extensive evaluation for the projects of Turkey and EU. This study reveals that the approaches between EU and Turkey to development agencies are different in case of efficient fund usage, processes, conditions, and experiences. The ability and capability of EU development agencies are considerably sufficient for precise decision-making and joint projects. In the conclusion of the study, suggestions will be offered for Turkish regional development agencies in order to make a contribution for to their development.

Public opinion on the European Union (EU) is significant and therefore a worthwhile topic of consideration. Analyses have identified and ordered the factors that impact public opinion on the EU, as well analyzed the efficacy of EU funds. Yet the confluence of these two lines of inquiry is understudied. Some Member States have surpluses and others deficits relative to the EU budget, which could impact citizens’ perceptions of the EU. To gauge this potential relationship, this article notes deficit and surplus Member States and responses to one Eurobarometer question about trust in the European Commission from 2000-2013. These variables are used to evaluate the EU budget’s impact on public opinion towards the EU. The data suggest that there is a limited correlation between the two. EU funds are overshadowed as a cause of public opinion formation on the EU by other forces, but can still influence it at the margins.