Potočnik: EU research programmes need to contribute to delivering Lisbon 

The debate on the upcoming financial perspective (the EU's long-term budget), the potential doubling of the research budget, reaching the 3 per cent Barcelona target on investing in research, plans for the European Research Council, state aid and the importance of communicating science are the current hot issues on the EU's research agenda. 

The Commissioner for Science and Research, Janez Potočnik, has given his view on these major topics to EurActiv and presented the main lines ahead of the Commission's upcoming proposal for the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.

The five-year assessment report of the state of the EU research (the Ormala report) has just been published. What do you see as the main recommendation of the report? What lessons do you see arising from it?

The panel has carried out really good work and all recommendations should naturally be taken seriously. The message that framework programmes have been quite successful was naturally a positive message for the Commission. The report’s recommendations are actually in line with what we already knew and the policies the Commission intends to present for the implementation of the Seventh Framework Programme. 

Taking into account the key role research plays in reaching the Lisbon objectives, do you think that doubling the budget will be enough? 

This is an interesting question indeed, as it normally goes rather like “don’t you think that doubling the research budget is too much”. Frankly, twice as much money is needed, but not just for research’s sake. We should not only stick to the questions predominantly connected to R&D, but we should see the global picture. The answer of the mid-term review of the Lisbon agenda is clearly in growth – knowledge and innovation for growth. Thus, when talking about doubling the research budget, we need to talk about it in connection with a broader context - from the point of view of society and economy in general. 

Further, one can ask how serious are we in delivering the Barcelona 3 per cent target, on which all member states agree. In order to achieve the target, we need, on the one hand public money (1 per cent) and on the other, private financing (2 per cent). European funding counts for 5 per cent of the current public part and we do not want to increase the percentage the European budget represents. Yes, our aim is to increase public spending for research and we want to be a good example for the others, but in the end, private funding is more important. Therefore, it is crucial to create proper working conditions in Europe so that the companies will stay in Europe. 

In addition to creating better working conditions for companies, can you think of any other ideas to encourage the private sector to invest more in science?

We hope that the measures to be taken in the Seventh Framework Programme will have many leveraging and encouraging effects on private investment. In addition, measures on tax incentives and intellectual property rights are necessary. Restructuring cohesion money is another issue as well as venture risk capital, which is one of the problems in the EU. All these issues matter and need to be addressed. In some of theses areas, I think, we could do much better than we have done so far. 

As regards state aid, an agreement on handling flexibly pre-market and/or pre-competitive research funding already exists. Do you intend to bring this agreement further ? 

This issue will be addressed in a proposal that will be on the table of the Commission in a few weeks time. The planned measures and expected outcomes will certainly be positive for research and development. 

I have also discussed with my colleague Danuta Hübner on how the structural and cohesion funds could be better used in to help the countries to 'catch up'. We already use cohesion money for development – road and railway infrastructure, environment infrastructure etc. – and it would be totally logical to use these funds for developing research infrastructures as well. Especially when we acknowledge the fact that some countries need to catch up in this area as well. 

The Luxembourg Presidency is currently leading the negotiations on the next financial perspective. Have the member states already accepted the idea of a doubling of the research budget or will it be challenged? 

I am sure that it will be challenged. However, we need to be logical an dtake logical step forward. If we have said “A” in the Lisbon Agenda, we need to say “B” in the financial perspective. The global amount of the financial perspective is not the only thing that matters, more important is the structure of it. A structural change in spending, such as decreasing CAP spending by 10 per cent and increasing Lisbon Agenda -related spending by 10 per cent, would make sense. 

Could you explain the role and function of the planned European Research Council (ERC)? How would it be positioned vis-à-vis the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the Technology Platforms? 

The idea of the ERC is to create something comparable to the United States National Science Foundation. Based on excellence, its aim is to create competition between researchers in Europe. Research conducted by the JRC supports Commission’s policies for example on GMO testing and the REACH proposal. Technology Platforms are industry-driven initiatives. ERC will be a totally independent, research-driven institution deciding itself on which direction to go in the future and on how to create an environment for the development of new ideas. 

Can you tell us the Commission’s plans for the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)? 

The current Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) consists of 7 priorities. In the FP7 there might be slightly more priorities (space and security are two new proposals), but with guaranteed continuity. 

Our logic concerning the FP7 is that it should not only be yet another Framework Programme, but something that contributes to delivering Lisbon, or more in this direction and for the competitiveness of the EU, we should base the FP7 on excellence. To introduce more stability to European R&D activities, we will present our proposal for seven years so that the programme matches the period of the next financial perspective. To introduce more flexibility, we will suggest conducting a mid-term review of the FP7. 

As regards the structure, more emphasis should be put on what we research - the thematic areas - and then on the instruments. The basic structure should be simple: there should be co-operation (‘collaborative research’), ideas (European Research Council), people (Marie Curie actions) and capacities. 

In terms of capacities, we think that some additional, specific actions should be taken to increase capacities in Europe or, even better, to use all the existing capacities - such as infrastructure, SMEs, regions and ‘science and society’ such as women, young scientists, international co-operation and research potential addressing specifically the question of how to bring the new members states and the candidate countries better on board. It is not about giving these countries specific arrangements, though. The aim is rather to increase their visibility and to use the structural funds better. 

The first part, co-operation, should be more industry-driven and based on research themes, whereas the second part, the ERC, people and capacities should be more research-driven. The FP7 will thus have a clearer structure than the FP6 and the Commission wants to present it in a way that is easy to understand. 

On simplification, we already have a task force dealing with the Marimon report issues and an inter-service group on the matter was created last week (week 7). Now, on my initiative, we are in the process of creating a ‘sounding board’ consisting of SMEs and other smaller users, which would ‘mirror’ the proposals already in the preparatory phase so that we would see how far to go. We want, at the same time, to focus on legislation but also to be sure that we address practically all the steps. 

As regards management, each increase in research funds has been, so far, well managed . However, if we now double the research budget, it will be an important managerial task for us. We do not want to create any supra-managerial unit here at the Commission or to increase the bureaucracy or staff. Therefore, we intend to outsource some of the actions and move in the direction of de-centralisation, externalisation. Actions would be outsourced to agencies, such as the European Research Council, which can be perfectly managed outside. Policies should naturally stay inhouse, and the outsourcing will need to be done step by step, with a clear view of what we want to achieve in the end. 

In addition, necessary links and synergies with my colleague Verheugen’s Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) and with the structural funds and cohesion programmes need to be established. 

Recent study shows that Americans have more trust in science than Europeans, even though Europeans have more knowledge about science. How could this knowledge be leveraged, in Europe, into better understanding, being more innovation-friendly whilst avoiding fears about theoretical issues linked to science? 

This is an extremely important, delicate and difficult question. This is far from being only research-related, or manageable by research only. It is really about 'how we manage knowledge' and thus about education (primary). 

I have already discussed this with my colleague Ján Figel - how do citizens see research as something that, in addition to great potentials, mirrors great fears. I think it is a long way from the primary school to university and to knowledge in society itself. In primary school, children are, in a way, pushed too much into a kind of a box to be good members of the society, and to not to think too much. Creativity should be allowed and we should somehow encourage and even push children to be more innovative and open-minded. 

So you focus a lot on education which is certainly important in terms of knowledge dissemination. But as citizens, when we are adults, we are a bit negative about science – how do you remedy this? How do you communicate science, how do you change communication policy on science? 

At European level, events such as ‘Earth and space week’, ‘Science week’ and ‘Year of science’ (currently an idea) contribute to communicating science. We could also do more on communicating the research projects funded under the FP5 and FP6, a domain where the Internet is of course one possibility. It should however be kept in mind that the projects are often run by scientists for whom the most important means to disseminate their work are specific and targeted scientific publications, not the general media.