Science in a Bigger Europe

Click for larger version (58K) Scientists throughout Europe are busy clicking on a "Find a Partner" link. They are not seeking romance. A typical proposal: "Seeking partners to study the influence of genetic and environmental factors on human morphofunctional status." The partner search service on the European Union's Framework 6 Programme (FP6) Web site (www.cordis.lu/fp6) is linking scientists seeking the transnational partners required for their projects to be eligible for FP6 funding. They are chasing their share of the ¤17.5 billion FP6 budget, which has at least 21% earmarked for the life sciences.1 With the European Union set to grow larger, the partner searches are covering new territory.2 On April 16, 10 countries were due to sign the Accession Treaty for EU entry in 2004. Others are in the queue. A NEW ERA The key aim is to create a huge European Research Area (ERA) in which researchers would move freely across borders and cultural barriers and build their careers in a spirit of trans-European cooperation.3 The challenge facing researchers is to build collaborations that offer genuine research advantages. "But the priority has to be excellence," says Julio Celis of the Danish Cancer Society and general secretary of the Federation of European Biochemical Societies. "So long as the peer review system works the money will go to the right places." Other EU scientists echo the emphasis on excellence. "Increasing 'quantity without quality' will not help," says Andreas Merdes, a senior research group leader at Edinburgh University's Wellcome Trust Centre for Cell Biology. Born in Germany, with research experience in Germany, the United States, and United Kingdom, Merdes has personal experience of the kind of mobility the European Union is trying to encourage, and he is concerned that one problem caused by enlargement will be an accelerating brain drain from the new members into the labs of existing members. "The candidate countries have a great pool of talent," he says, "but the relatively poor economic situation of these countries discourages the best people from returning." Still, the EU funds can help build the scientific infrastructure in newer European countries. Richard Villems, of the Genetics for the next Millennium Centre in Tartu, Estonia, already has experience of participating in EU science, even though Estonia is not yet a member of the European Union. "Estonia paid an entrance fee to the Framework 5 Programme and was reasonably successful in obtaining research grants," Villems says. Villems' institution is one of 34 designated Centers of Excellence in candidate states that are being funded by the European Union. The centers are scientific institutions with a recognized track record in their fields. They bid for EU research funding along with everyone else, but extra funding allows them to support European integration through exchange programs, conferences, and other networking activities. In the new FP6, all candidate and associate states can participate freely as equal partners with existing member states. The program is designed to increase the participation of candidate countries, but according to Villems it has not met with universal approval. "The reaction of the European scientific community to the new instruments in FP6 is inconsistent," Villems says. "Some are in favor and others are strongly against. If the involvement of candidate countries is significantly low compared to existing member states, the [European] Commission may need to invent some new scenarios." Another success story from FP5 was Slovenia, with 28% of its bids for funding accepted, compared to the average of 24.9% achieved by current member states. Clearly, candidate countries can win a good share of available funding. "Becoming a Center of Excellence has been wonderful for us," says Janez Plavec, of the Slovenian NMR Center. "It has brought national and regional recognition and is a seed that is going to flourish." BECOMING COMPETITIVE Research has been the first area of EU policy to be fully opened up in this way, reflecting its importance to the European Commission, which envisions research as a tool for increasing economic competitiveness with the United States. Nevertheless, Commission President Romano Prodi has warned that progress so far has been slow.4 The Commission blames the slow progress on a low level of investment in research and development, currently at 1.94% of gross domestic product (GDP) in the European Union, compared with 2.8% in the United States and 2.98% in Japan.5 Investment in research and development in candidate countries is even worse, averaging only 0.7% of GDP. Attaining the Commission's target of 3% for every country in the Union will clearly be made more challenging by enlargement. The Commission will shortly release a "road map" outlining the steps they hope member states will take to boost investment in research. There are administrative issues, too. "We must ensure the free movement of researchers across borders," comments Helge Sander, Danish minister for science. "Today they must spend time and energy on red tape which has nothing to do with science."6 Philippe Busquin, EU research commissioner, has also voiced concern, especially about the lack of mutually recognized qualifications.7 The steady brain drain of scientists from the whole continent of Europe, largely to the United States, is another worry. It's not just a question of better salaries and facilities needed to keep scientists in the Union. "We will only manage to keep qualified scientists in Europe if we are capable of carrying out a reform of our tax system, so that investment and achievement will pay," says German MEP Hans-Gert Pöttering.7 Others express their concerns more brutally. Chris Evans, prominent biotech venture capitalist and chairman of Merlin Biosystems, says, "All those dysfunctional nations, regulatory barriers everywhere, shares not quoted in the same place. Europe's got a problem." Andrew Scott (andrewscotteurope@yahoo.co.uk) is a science writer in Scotland. References 1. A. Scott, "EU funding and politics," The Scientist, 17[1]:53, Jan. 13, 2003. 2. EU Enlargement Web site: europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/index_en.html 3. European Research Area Web site: europa.eu.int/comm/research/era/index_en.html 4. "Research investment crucial to attaining Lisbon goals, says Prodi," Cordis Express, Jan. 17, 2003; available online at www.cordis.lu/express/archive/170103/home.html 5. Third European Report on Science & Technology Indicators 2003, The European Com- mission; available online at www.cordis.lu/rtd2002/indicators/third_report.htm 6. "Research ministers agree to 'listen more' to one another," Cordis Focus, No. 211, Dec. 16, 2002; available online at www.cordis.lu/focus/en/src/archives.htm 7. "Busquin calls for improved working environment for researchers in Europe," Cordis Focus, No. 212, Jan. 13, 2003, available online at www.cordis.lu/focus/en/src/archives.htm THE STRUGGLE FOR POST-SOVIET SCIENCE As candidate countries for the European Union, former Soviet states face major obstacles in gaining admission: lack of scientific infrastructure and scientists, and low research funding, to name a few. Even though these states have emerged from the former Soviet Union, they still deal with the consequences of divisive Soviet rule. "The structure of scientific institutions separated the research community from the education community from the technology and business community," says Elizabeth Kirk, director of Europe and Central Asia programs for the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "That tends to isolate scientists from the broader integrated community that we have here and in Western Europe. It creates a problem for the development of market economies." These countries have lost significant funding resources from the Soviet military and government apparatus, and they've lost research partners as well. "Collaboration with Former Soviet Academy of Science institutes and universities died down," says Helle Martinson, an Estonian Science Foundation board member. Without outside help, the governments spend comparatively little on research. Member states are supposed to devote about 3% of GDP to research and development; candidate countries such as the Baltic States and Slovenia lag noticeably. Slovenia, at 1.51% of GDP, is high compared to the Baltics, according to Zoren Stancic, state secretary in the Ministry of Education, Science, and Sport. All the Baltics spend less than 1%, with Estonia leading the pack at 0.8% GDP; Latvia weighs in at 0.5% and Lithuania at 0.6%, Martinson says. These countries will struggle to catch up with the rest of Europe. "They will have to increase their spending on research to fully take part in the European Union," says Anna Remond, a Brussels-based administrator for EU candidate countries. Former USSR satellites also have to ensure that young scientists do not stray to better paying jobs in Europe and the United States. "Emigration of researchers was intensive in the first half of the 1990s, especially in Latvia and Lithuania," Martinson says. "In Estonia only 10 to 15% of researchers who left science went abroad." Slovenia also has a more developed science program, Remond says. "People like to stay in Slovenia." The success may stem from a Slovenian program to pay graduate student stipends, which was launched in the 1980s to ward off a possible brain drain, according to Stancic. "We have found out that less than 3% of the persons who finish this program leave the country," he says, "and the share of those who are leaving is smaller than those scientists who are coming to Slovenia." --Harvey Black

Science in a Bigger Europe

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of