Historically, the European Union has not bothered with funding much basic scientific research. Such activities have mainly remained the preserve of national governments, not least because giving scientists free rein can lead to discoveries that not only make money but ultimately enhance military might.
That attitude is now changing. The European Commission proposes to establish a European Research Council(ERC) that would spend a maximum of 12 billion (＄14 billion) over seven years on" blue skies" research. While the plans are being generally welcomed by Europe’s member states, their details are problematic. The proposed ERC is intended to make Europe more competitive. Europe has some first-class universities, scientific institutions and research organisations. But, the ERC’s proponents argue, their activities are fragmented, so they are not reaching their full potential.
In America, teams from across the country compete with each other for grants from the National Science Foundation. The proposed ERC is modelled on this scheme. It would award grants to individual research teams for a specific project, solely on the basis of scientific merit judged by peer review. If the ERC were created, scientists from across Europe would compete with each other for funds, rather than merely competing with their fellow countrymen, as happens at present.
This compares with the limited funding for basic research that currently exists in the EU, which places its emphasis on collaboration between researchers. It is open only to researchers in a narrow range of disciplines chosen by the European Parliament and the commission. The ERC would be quite different, placing its emphasis on competition between researchers and leaving scientists themselves to decide which areas of science to pursue. Helga Nowotny, who chairs the European Research Advisory Board—an advisory body to the commission—says that winning a grant from the ERC could come to be seen as utakable recognition of research excellence.
The quality of European research needs to be stepped up a notch. Between 1980 and 2003, Europe had 68 Nobel laureates in medicine, physics and chemistry compared with 154 in America. With competition from China and India, Europe’s share could fall further.
One of the reasons for Europe’s relatively weak performance is thought to be a lack of genuine competition between Europe’s researchers. Another is its poor ability to attract young people into a research career. Recent estimates suggest that Europe needs an extra 700,000 researchers if it is to meet its overall target of raising spending(private,national and EU) on research and development to 3% of GDP by 2010. Many young scientists leave Europe for America once they have finished their training. Dr Nowotny says the ERC could help here too. It could establish a scheme to give young researchers the opportunity to follow their own ideas and become independent at an earlier stage in their careers, encouraging talent to stay in Europe.
The crucial issue now is whether the ERC will be able to set its own research agenda, free from the interference and bureaucracy of the commission and influence of member states. Last month, 22 leading European scientists charged with shaping the ERC’ s scientific strategy met for the first time to start hammering out a charter and constitution. Serious concerns remain over the legal structure of the body.
The final decision on the ERC’ s legal form, on a date yet unspecified, rests with the European Parliament and member states in the European Council. If both are genuine in their support for the ERC and Europe’s aim of becoming more competitive, then they must find a way of keeping the ERC free from political interference. Europe would benefit from a competition for its best researchers which rewards scientific excellence. A quasi-competition that recognizes how many votes each member state is allotted would be pointless.
Why did the EU seldom finance basic scientific research in the past