Anhörungen im Europäischen Parlament mit dem designierten Kommissar Janez Potonik

Dieser Bericht des European Policy Centre (EPC) fasst die
parlamentarische Anhörung des designierten
Kommissars Janez Potonik vom 1.Oktober 2004 zusammen. Er
beantwortete die Fragen der EU-Abgeordneten zu einer
weiten Bandbreite an Themen, unter
anderem Biotechnologie-Forschung und Erhöhung der
Fördermittel, die dem 7.Rahmenforschungsprogramms zur
Verfügung stehen. Es wurde Besorgnis über
einige Finanzierungspläne von Projekten im Bereich
Forschung & Entwicklung
ausgedrückt.   

In his introductory statement, 
Janez Potonik

pointed out the role of research funding in his
own academic career, having been awarded a
scholarship by the Slovenian government to
undertake a PhD in economics. His experience
meant that he had a personal understanding of
the constraints as well as the benefits of
research policy and funding. He admitted that
the Union was perceived as distant, and that
this public perception was aggravated by the
complexity of the Lisbon Agenda. The strategy
should be revised, in order to establish
clearer priorities and easily verifiable
criteria, so as to “wake up the dormant
patient.” As Commissioner he would focus
on five key objectives:

• Increasing the direct benefits of science
  for European citizens.
• Reinforcing the role of science as a key
  factor for economic growth.
• Continuing and improving financial
  support under the 6th Framework
  Programme.
• Accelerating the integration of the new
  Member States into EU research policy.
• Simplifying the procedures for awarding
  financial assistance. 

EU research policy should remain inclusive.
An increased proportion of women in research
and development programmes would be sought as a
driver for growth in research but also as a
factor in diffusing scientific knowledge in
society. Mr Potonik quoted the Surrealist
painter, Francis Picabia, before opening the
floor for questions: “our head is round to
allow our thoughts to change
direction.” 

More and better funding at EU
level

In reply to a question from 
Paul Rübig

(EPP-ED) on the 
7th Framework Programme

, Mr Potonik repeated the objective set out in
his written answers of 
doubling the budget

available for the period 2007-2013. This would
represent the biggest research and development
budget in the world. The size of the budget
underpinning the 6th Framework Programme had
led to a high number of interesting projects
being rejected, especially under the Marie
Curie programme. Increasing the budget of the
7th Framework Programme from 17 to 30 billion
Euro would partly solve this problem.

However, improving financial assistance for
R&D in Europe did not only require an
increased budget. Answering a question
from 
Lena Ek

(ALDE/ADLE), the Commissioner Designate
acknowledged the need for 
simplifying application
procedures 

with a view to shortening the time lag between
the setting up of a project and its effective
start. In that regard, Mr Potonik agreed with
the recommendations formulated in the
Marimón report on changes needed in the
tendering procedure. This process should be
driven by a two-step approach: the competing
project should first be explained in terms of
its founding principles, before undergoing a
more comprehensive evaluation.

Mr Potonik vigorously emphasised the need
for a dual source of financing, involving both
public and private actors. 
Private investment in research and
development

was a vital instrument for the attainment of an
important Lisbon objective: to raise research
and development expenditure by the EU to 3% of
GDP by 2010. Giving away his economic
background, the Commissioner Designate
displayed a graph to illustrate the correlation
between private and public funding in R&D.
Despite this graphic backing, his intervention
may have given ground to those who fear that
the designation of Mr Potonik will not lead to
any improvement in the financial management of
EU R&D. Massive amounts of public money
could be invested in projects of dubious
feasibility, based on the expectation that
private funding would eventually come in. The
emphasis Mr Potonik put 
on the role of SMEs

was much more consensual in that sense. The
Commissioner Designate’s comments were in
line with the views of several MEPs on how to
bridge the gap between economic growth and
growth in research, especially in the light of
enlargement. 

Fostering scientific careers in
Europe

In response to a question from 
Umberto Guidoni

(GUE/NGL), Mr Potonik recognised that 
human resources

were crucial for the success of an ambitious
R&D policy in Europe. There were on average
6 researchers for 1000 people in Europe,
compared to 8.1 researchers in the USA and 9.1
researchers in Japan. In that regard, 
education

was key and Mr Potonik stressed the importance
of school programmes in rousing the scientific
curiosity of young Europeans, thereby creating
more vocations in sciences. On the issue of
brain drain, the Commissioner Designate
answered a question from 
Jorgo Chatzimarkakis

(ALDE/ADLE) by expressing his refusal to
concentrate on keeping European researchers in
Europe. In the opinion of Mr Potonik, it was
more important to actively participate in
international networks, so as to balance
“in and outflows of
researchers.”  

Ms Ek

(ALDE/ADLE) thanked Mr Potonik for being the
first Commissioner Designate to mention the
principle of 
equal opportunities

in his written answers. However, several MEPs
asked how Mr Potonik intended to deliver on
this Lisbon objective, especially with regard
to women. In Mr Potonik’s view, the 
lack of female researchers

related to a specific field in higher
education, that is, postgraduate studies, as
62% of science graduates were women, but this
share fell to 15% in postgraduate programmes.
The Commissioner Designate described this said
this was one of his main priorities, but failed
to mention any concrete measures for combating
gender discrimination in sciences. 

New research fields

Mr Potonik was persistently questioned on
the issue of 
research in biotechnologies

 
and human tissue

. Answering questions from 
Pia Elda Locatelli

(PES) on stem cell research, Mr Potonik said he
was willing to strike a balance between the
need for a breakthrough in medical research and
ethical concerns raised by the utilisation of
human cells. He could not commit himself to any
specific budget under the 7th Framework
Programme, as the Parliament would also have a
say through the co-decision procedure. On
biotechnology, the Commissioner Designate said
that it was one of the seven priority areas
under the 6th Framework Programme and that it
was also covered by one of the two existing
European Technology Platforms. 

Asked about possible impediments to research
caused by a 
software patent

, Mr Potonik refused to take a stand on the
controversial draft directive. This was
understandable, as the Parliament will vote on
a revised proposal in the coming weeks on rules
for software patenting. The Commissioner
Designate’s silence was in stark contrast
with his clear support for the 
ITER project

, on which he had already answered at length in
the written questionnaire. Mr Potonik refused
to cede ground to vigorous questions from 
David Hammerstein Mintz 

(Greens/EFA) concerning the costs and benefits
of ITER. He admitted that there could possibly
be no tangible results before 2030.
Nevertheless, financing should be guaranteed
for the decades to come, as the outcome was
expected to drastically reduce the constraint
of energy provision in Europe. 

Conclusion

Several MEPs at the end of the hearing
expressed satisfaction about working with Mr
Potonik. In their opinion, the Commissioner
Designate had confirmed the good impression
made in his written answers to their initial
questionnaire. His commitment to obtain a
doubling of the financial envelope for research
and development under the 7th Framework
Programme was decisive in this respect. Mr
Potonik answered most of the questions in
English with precision, except for the
directive on software patenting. Despite his
solid preparation, Mr Potonik’s answers
may have raised eyebrows on two key points.
Firstly, the Commissioner Designate
persistently dodged questions about social
science coverage in the 6th and 7th Framework
Programmes. It could be inferred from this
evasion that social sciences will not benefit
from any increased support under Mr
Potonik’s mandate. Secondly, Mr Potonik
seemed to give full credit to the concept of
public investment in research and development
as a pre-condition for private investment and
for the financing of the project as a whole.
This approach could be detrimental to the sound
financial management of EU research policy, as
it might result in a blank cheque for
financially dubious projects. The clear support
expressed by Mr Potonik for the ITER project
confirmed this possible bias. Financial
sustainability is a driving principle in the
Lisbon Strategy, with research and development
one of the central instruments for the
attainment of the Lisbon objectives. For that
reason, it would be quite surprising if the
EU’s research and development policy were
not subject to the same financial rigour as the
other policy areas. 

This report was prepared by 
Julien Bouzon, EPC Junior Policy
Analyst

.