Towards a European Research Area October, 19 – 21, 2005, Speyer, Germany

1. 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

2. 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

3. KEY CHALLENGES FOR EUROPE • Health and longevity • Safety & security • Sustainable growth (environment, climate changes, culture) • The Asian growth– need for peaceful coexistence

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. JOINT INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS source: 2nd European Report on S&T Indicators 1997 - EC

8. Hungary - 8 times Hungary, Poland Poland - 6 times 5 times JOINT PUBLICATIONS with the USA 1980-1995 with the EU source: 2nd European Report on S&T Indicators 1997 - EC

9. 6,5 6,1 6,6 17,6 6,7 13,8 3,1 6,0 MOBILITY BETWEEN PASCI AND EUROPE (IN %)

10. HOW DO THEY WORK AND PUBLISH? Courtesy - Prof. A. K Wróblewski

11. BENEFITS FROM COLLABORATION • Enhances effectiveness of research1 + 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 scientificdiscoveries

12. KEY ACTORS OF A DIALOGUE • Researchers • National governments &/or Research Councils in MS • The European Commission • International science organisations • NEED FOR CONCERTED ACTION

13. 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 supportgood to become better, but also favour advancedto become even more advanced: • – may lead to creation of intellectual and innovation deserts - brain drain – both internal and external

14. 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

15. EU-25 NETWORKS OF EXCELLENCE

16. FP6 - OVERALL RESULTS

17. 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

18. 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

19. NMS ASSETS AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES • Researchers in NMS constitute a sixth of allEuropean 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 toachieve “full” utilization of research potential of all member states

20. NMS ASSETS - STUDENTS

21. NMS ASSETS – SCIENCE LEVEL CITATION INTENSITY GDP per person in thousands US dollars David A. King, Nature 2004

22. 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

23. NEW VISION FOR FP7 • COLLABORATION • IDEAS • PEOPLE • CAPACITIES • Frontier research (creation of ERC) – a chancefor NMS • Building and strengthening of research capacities inconvergence regions • Research infrastructure with pan-European access • Proposal (Poland, Sweden) for European Social and Environmental Platforms

24. 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 for any progress of science, Poland fully endorses the proposed establishment of the European Research Council”.

25. FORTHCOMING INITIATIVES – FP7 • Co-financed programmes • Co-ordination and integration of national researchprogrammes (ERA-NET+, Art. 169) • Opening of national grant schemes for internationalparticipation:- dissemination of best practices- improving synergy- enhancing national systems- modernizing national research programmes

26. WHAT NEEDED FROM THE NMS PERSPECTIVE • Continuation of Centres of Excellence programs (FP5) • Large facilities and international institutionslocated in the NMS countries: cohesion and structural funds • Incentives for trained young people to returnto their home base • European Institute of Technology

27. 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