It is a great pleasure for me to address you here today. For young scientists who are studying or have studied in such a prominent University, I thought that it would be interesting to have a broad outline of European Union scientific research and, more particularly, of the fifth framework programme which we have already been preparing for some months now.
Research expenditure as a percentage of GDP amounted to 2% in the European Union in 1995 compared with 2.7% in the USA and almost 3% in Japan. In 1993 the number of researchers per thousand of the working population was 4.7 in the Union, 7.4 in the USA and 8 in Japan.
Europe has nevertheless retained its scientific excellence to this day thanks to the remarkable productivity of its scientists. If we look at the publication figures, the average for researchers in the Union is about 18 papers published in the natural and exact sciences compared with 14 in the USA and 6 in Japan, principally in the area of chemistry, medical chemistry, biomedicine and physics.
At the same time, pressure from our main competitors is growing inexorably. The USA has just adopted a public research budget that represents an increase of 4% compared with the previous year.
Japan's budget has increased by 7% in 1996 and the government recently announced its intention to increase it still further in the near future. These figures give us an idea of our strengths and our capabilities; they also reveal the magnitude of the task before us if we are to avoid losing ground in an area so essential to our economy and the welfare of our societies.
As you know, the European Union contributes to research by supporting and completing the initiatives of Member States. This policy finds its expression in the framework programmes. The manner in which it has been implemented over the last fifteen years has had a profound influence on research actors and structures in Europe.
It has stimulated and facilitated the creation and development of numerous collaboration networks, forging close links between researchers, laboratories and organisations across national borders.
We are now three years into the fourth framework programme. From the outset, it has attracted intense interest from all the relevant circles. No fewer than 28 000 project proposals have been submitted, resulting in some 3 000 projects with over 10 000 participants from the European Union and beyond. Despite this initial positive balance, which shows the increasingly important role these programmes play in Europe, I must add a qualifying note.
We have had to recognise that we still lack proper guidelines to help us make pertinent choices from among the large numbers of proposals submitted, which represent considerable interest in themselves but are dispersed over an increasingly broad field. This has led us to spread our resources too thinly, with consequent dissipation of effort. There is no denying that the selection method used has often prevented us from achieving the critical mass needed to obtain significant results. Our arbitration and orientation procedures have also neglected another important factor: new problems are constantly emerging, to which science and technology are expected to find rapid solutions, such as "mad cow" disease, which has been the focus of attention for some months now. I therefore found it necessary to supplement the operational part of the current programme with a number of research/industry task forces to meet urgent requirements arising in certain areas of social or economic importance. We now have eight task forces in areas such as aeronautics, cars, educational software, vaccines, environment and water, etc. These task forces quickly proved to be extremely useful as instruments for coordinating European Union programmes with national initiatives.
A few weeks ago the Commission presented a paper entitled "Inventing tomorrow", in preparation for the fifth framework programme which is due to become operational in 1999. In terms of content and management procedures, it is deliberately innovative compared with the previous programmes. The main accents that have been introduced take account of the diagnosis I outlined a few moments ago: inadequate selection criteria, inflexibility, access difficulties particularly for small firms.
If we look at the broader picture, however, the general context in which the fifth framework programme is being prepared has become more complex:
We therefore need to carry out a thorough review and clarify the future objectives of Community research.
Our general aim is clear: Europe's research must be placed at the service of its people. We must move on from research geared to technical performance to research more closely in tune with social and economic needs.
Furthermore, the framework programme should focus on a number of priority objectives in order to avoid overextension and dissipation of resources. The Commission has therefore proposed a targeting of activities on three priority topics:
It proposes to carry out three horizontal activities in support of these topics, with the following aims:
Another important subject we need to consider is exchanges and mobility. Scientific research and innovation, as you know, thrive in a climate of exchange, confrontation and continuous interaction. In this area, the free movement of ideas goes handinhand with human mobility.
Europe is not in a very good position in this respect compared, once again, with its main competitors, the USA and Japan. In spite of the progress made in the last few years thanks, not least, to the various Community programmes, there are still too many obstacles to personal mobility and the movement of ideas.
This realisation led me to present a Green Paper on the obstacles to transnational mobility. It reviews all the factors impeding the mobility of students, teachers, people in training or researchers, and suggests ways of addressing the problems, whether of an administrative or tax nature, due to insufficient information or a lack of host structures.
This Green Paper is open to debate in all the Member States with a view to refining the diagnosis and adding to the proposals for action. The debate concerns all the actors in the field of education, training and research at all levels, whether individuals or institutions. I would be glad for your institution to make a contribution as well.
It will provide a basis for suggesting measures that Member States could take to improve the mobility we desperately need in this area.
As you can see, the European Union aims to optimise its research effort. For this reason, its choices will be based on more stringent criteria in future. In the final part of my talk, I should like to consider a number of questions that have often arisen in the preparation of the fifth framework programme.
The first concerns the scope for basic research in the programme: will the focus on objectives geared to peoples' needs and the market undermine scientific excellence?Let me be very clear on this point. The two aspects are in no way mutually incompatible.
In the field of health, the environment or transport, to take only these examples, sophisticated research and the development of advanced technologies is essential in order to meet social needs. Two major features of contemporary research are a blurring of the distinction between basic research and applications: a shortening of the time lapse between breakthroughs in scientific theory and their translation into results on the ground.
Consequently, there must always be room in the specific programmes for research of a fundamental nature, on condition that it contributes real "added value" to efforts at national level in the same field. Furthermore, the paper "Inventing tomorrow" unambiguously argues the case for supporting this type of research, including "bluesky" research on unscheduled topics. This is the objective currently promoted in the "Training and mobility" programme.
The second major question that has arisen in the present debate concerns the place and role of social sciences in the new framework programme. "Inventing tomorrow" explicitly refers to socioeconomic research as one of the areas in need of support at European level.
It will therefore be represented in two ways:
Finally, I should like to say a few words on the next stages of the drafting and adoption of the fifth framework programme.
As we have seen, the paper "Inventing tomorrow" was designed to launch the necessary debate given the nature of the challenges. The Commission will shortly publish a more detailed working paper, but one which still leaves room for discussion of the options proposed. At the beginning of next year, the Commission will then present a formal proposal which should be adopted some time at the beginning of 1998. Finally, let me draw your attention to the subtitle of our paper "Inventing tomorrow , which is highly symbolic: "Europe's research at the service of its people".This is the essence of our research policy. In view of the manifest needs and aspirations, the rationale of European research on the eve of the twentyfirst century must be to benefit its citizens. It must therefore become more transparent and visible than before with regard to the direction in which it is heading, it must be carried out more simply and it must produce more efficient results.I am confident that it can do all of these, and so demonstrate to the people the full extent of what the European Union can accomplish for them.
Thank you