EC Looks To Shut Out U.S. Science

WASHINGTON—On the second Wednesday of each month, a dozen diplomatic science advisers gather behind closed doors at the French embassy here and talk about the future. The diplomats represent the 12 nations of the European Community (EC), and the focus of their discussion is 1992, the year targeted for the establishment of a unified European economy. Although the EC now controls only a small share of the funds that Europe spends on science, that share is expected to grow considerably in the next decade. And the EC has already sent a clear message to United States scientists: Their participation in European projects, at least at first, will be by invitation only. “We are principally concerned with the inside-Europe collaborations,” says one EC official. “We have to keep the momentum of our internal integration. If we can later find the correct arguments for outside collaboration, we will be ready. But we’re not running after collaboration at this stage.” That attitude may spell trouble for U.S. science policymakers. In an era where “big science” is increasingly the norm, international collaboration is central in the thinking of project planners. From the Human Genome Project to the Superconducting Supercollider, U.S. scientists are backing initiatives that go well beyond the financial resources of a single country. But so far the search for partners has not gone well, and the arrival of European integration in 1992 appears unlikely to improve matters much; indeed, at least initially, it may make collaboration even more difficult. In August, EC officials approved the final draft of a five-year research budget. Known as Framework, the $8.6 billion proposal includes nearly a dozen collaborative research programs, on topics ranging from materials science to biotechnology. The mix makes a fertile soil for collaborative science within Europe. The joint programs serve as research consortia that leverage the science budgets of the individual EC countries. But EC research is still only about 3% of the combined science budgets of the member nations. Each of the four largest EC countries spends from eight to 17 times more on science yearly than the combined EC annual funding for R&D. “National efforts of the member states have accounted for the overwhelming majority of all R&D—public and private—carried out in Europe,” Peter Jon de Vos, a State Department science and technology expert, told a congressional hearing on the subject earlier this year. “We believe that will continue to be the case.” The EC’s share of basic research is even smaller. What research funding the EC does supply goes mostly for applied science such as semiconductor development and materials research. When it comes to basic science, says NSF analyst Richard Bradshaw, “we’re still talking about the fringes of EC funding.” Even when Europe spends its money through the EC, the participants tend to be EC members. (Those members are Britain, France, West Germany, Italy, Greece, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and Luxembourg.) And the move toward a united Europe may strengthen that tendency. As a recent report from the Congressional Research Service notes: “[European integration in 1992] could lead to pressures on each country to look to others in Europe for collaboration in research, at the expense of current or potential collaboration with the United States or other non-EC nations.” That pattern poses a serious problem for U.S. science planners. And there aren’t any easy answers. “It’s a sensitive issue, and one we don’t have a good grip on yet,” says NSF’s Bradshaw. “The struggle in Europe is about whether science should be funded by the individual countries or by the EC. Do we place our bets on bilateral science, or do we work with the community? These questions are coming at a time when the answer is far from clear." A look at some of the “big science” projects now under way in the U.S. shows how hard it’s been for policymakers to find financial partners in Europe. Human Genome Project “This is the ‘one you can hang your hat on,” says congressional Office of Technology Assessment ana- lyst Randy Snell. “If [collaboration between the EC and the U.S. on] the Human Genome Project doesn’t work, then nothing will.” But efforts so far have been hampered by limited European funding and political resistance. Although international cooperation has been an oft repeated goal for project planners at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy (DOE), they have never spelled out clearly how such collaborations should work. The most recent suggestion, by NIH project head James Watson, involved “distributing” chromosomes to various countries for mapping and sequencing. But the proposal drew considerable fire after its airing this spring, and Watson has since distanced himself from it. As yet, no clear alternatives have emerged. Several European countries have independent programs of varying size, the largest of which is an $18 million, three-year British project. The EC will spend $17 million over the next two years on human genome research, with matching funds from its partners. Although the EC is likely to play a larger funding role in the future. officials say its more valuable contribution may be to coordinate European genome research funded by individual nations. “The major work of the EC program will be to pull strings,” says Peter Pearson, chairman of the EC advisory board for human genome analysis. Meanwhile, NIH is encouraging informal collaboration between U.S. and European scientists doing work on the same chromosome. “We’re encouraged by the fact that the [EC] countries are making money available, but so far it has not been very much money." says, Watson's NIH deputy, Elke Jordan. Until a coherent EC policy emerges on human genome research, she says, “we’ll have to wait and see” about large collaborations. One sticking point in any collaboration is the strong opposition from West Germany's Green party to any type of genetic research. The Greens have succeeded in blocking funding for such work in the past within the country, and their message is spreading to environmental activists throughout the continent. Superconducting Supercollider DOE officials have stressed repeatedly that international support is essential to the success of their 10-year, $6 billion effort to build the world’s largest particle accelerator. But only one nation—India—has so far committed to the project. European collaboration was an early goal for Superconducting Supercollider (SSC) planners, who visited many of the EC nations almost two years ago in an unsuccessful bid for support. But DOE officials delayed further explorations until they received a clear sign from Congress that it would support construction of the gigantic machine. That signal came in last month’s appropriations bill, which contained $225 million for initial construction. As a result, says James Decker, deputy director of the Office of Energy Research, this month the agency plans to renew its search for European partners, But so far the EC hasn’t encouraged DOE to come calling. “I don’t see any discussion with the EC in the near future,” says Decker. “High-energy physics hasn’t been a big activity” for the Community. He notes that the EC has played a minor role in the operation and use of CERN, the continent’s largest accelerator. Given that lack of interest, Decker says DOE will instead focus onbilateral agreements with independent nations. Space Station In contrast to other U.S. projects, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s $30 billion space platform includes a $3 billion commitment from the Europeans. That support comes from the European Space Agency (ESA), an organization independent of the EC, but one that, nonetheless, includes nine EC partners. On the other hand, the collaboration has hardly been a smooth one. In fact, the constant redesigning of the space station, done in response to continuing congressional displeasure over its spiraling cost, may sour future joint efforts. The changes have prompted angry cries from ESA officials, who complain that European interests are being neglected in NASA’s struggle to save the project. The imbroglio has not escaped the attention of EC science planners. “In my opinion, the U.S. has not yet found a suitable way to involve non-U.S. participants early enough in its big-science projects,” says one EC official. “It is not enough that you invite them after plans are already completed. This is the case with the SSC and the space station.” The official warned that future projects “will have to produce extremely good arguments to get collaboration from Europe.” U.S. Policy Emerging While U.S. planners aren’t yet counting on an EC role in big science, they do intend to be ready for the inevitable emergence of an integrated European research community. With that in mind, policymakers in Washington recently assembled two panels to study the EC’s impact on U.S. science. One, a task force of the National Science Board, NSF’s governing body, expects to release its report next August. Among other issues, the panel has been asked to determine how Europe 1992 will affect U.S. access to EC science facilities. The White House. Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) has also formed a committee to design an “umbrella agreement” that will set guidelines for science and technology collaboration with the EC. But officials warn against building up false hopes that such an agreement will pave the way to widespread cooperation. A similar pact signed with Japan last year, they note, has had little impact so far. “Collaborations always work best on the lowest level,” says OSTP’s Paul Huray. As Europe itself wrestles with the shape of its science policy, many observers are maintaining a “wait and see” attitude. Without a clear indication of the magnitude of Europe 1992’s impact, planners are finding it difficult to choose sides. Should the next big international science project be planned with individual countries or with the EC? “To the degree that we place our bets one way or the other, it’s at the detriment of the other side,” warns NSF’s Bradshaw. The EC, meanwhile, has its own worries. As 1992 looms, Europe remains far from economic unity. Since 1985, when the Community first announced its goal, a host of unexpected obstacles have emerged, from infighting over electrical plug standards to Britain’s refusal to link its currency to the EC monetary unit. And those disputes take precedence over any talk about scientific collaboration. “European integration is the alpha and the omega,” says one EC official. Intercontinental science, he suggests, will just have to wait.

EC Looks To Shut Out U.S. Science

Become a Member of

Meet the Author

Christopher Anderson

Published In

October 1989

Related Research Resources

A Stubborn Gene, a Failed Experiment, and a New Path

Research Resources

Podcasts

Webinars

Videos

Infographics

eBooks

Advancing Drug Discovery with Complex Human In Vitro Models

Redefining Immunology Through Advanced Technologies

Ensuring Regulatory Compliance in AAV Manufacturing with Analytical Ultracentrifugation

Maximizing Cancer Research Model Systems

Products

Product News

Sino Biological Pioneers Life Sciences Innovation with High-Quality Bioreagents on Inside Business Today with Bill and Guiliana Rancic

Sino Biological Expands Research Reagent Portfolio to Support Global Nipah Virus Vaccine and Diagnostic Development

Beckman Coulter Life Sciences Partners with Automata to Accelerate AI-Ready Laboratory Automation

Refeyn named in the Sunday Times 100 Tech list of the UK’s fastest-growing technology companies