On Monday 18 September, Christian Ehler (EPP, German) presented his report on promoting freedom of scientific research in the EU to the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE). The rapporteur felt that the complexity of the issue was no reason not to act to protect the freedom of scientific research. “If we fail to protect our scientists, we give up a fundamental part of what is Europe”, he stressed.
The MEP urged the Commission to follow up this parliamentary work with a legislative proposal to create a solid legal basis to protect the freedom of scientific research.
Anna Panagopoulou, for the European Commission, said she was generally very happy with the draft resolution, but disagreed with the statement included in the draft that the Commission had not used its legal authority to protect freedom of research.
Mr Ehler acknowledged the European Commission’s efforts, but, referring in particular to the closure of universities in Hungary, he felt that Europe did not yet have an effective legal basis.
The shadow rapporteurs expressed their support for the text. However, Lina Gálvez Muñoz (S&D, Spanish) added that changes in the choice of funding for research institutes could also be seen as a threat to the autonomy of researchers.
Mikuláš Peksa (Greens/EFA, Czech) insisted on the need for research results to be available for non-commercial purposes and that publicly funded research should be published in openly accessible formats.
Francesca Donato (non-attached, Italian) stressed the importance of providing European public funding to preserve academic independence in the face of conflicts of interest and private influence.
Johan Nissinen (ERC, Swedish), speaking on behalf of Ladislav Ilčić (ERC, Croatian), wanted the resolution to incorporate other principles: he stressed that he believed freedom of scientific research was important, but should not be absolute.
Mr Ehler replied that there was no excess of academic freedom, but that it was important to protect this freedom. The rapporteur added that legal safeguards existed, such as public and criminal law.
Lenka Jancova, a representative of the Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value of the European Parliamentary Research Service, presented the preliminary results of a study on the matter.
The study shows a relatively high level of academic freedom in Europe, but an erosion of several of its elements, including the level of funding and a brain drain.
In this study, several challenges were identified: the lack of a binding European definition of academic freedom, the absence of a common European methodology and indicators to measure and monitor freedom of scientific research, researchers’ lack of awareness and understanding of their rights, as well as emerging threats linked to new technologies, private sector influence and foreign interference.
The study authors have identified a number of concrete measures that could help to address these challenges. Possible measures include the establishment of a European support platform for scientists, where they could, among other things, report infringements of their freedom of research, the creation of a scoreboard on freedom of research, and the linking of freedom of scientific research to the European mechanism on the rule of law.
Concluding the debates, Mr Ehler stressed the crucial importance of dialogue with stakeholders and their central role in shaping the European definition of freedom of scientific research.
The deadline for the tabling of amendments is 26 September.
Link to the draft resolution: https://aeur.eu/f/8n2 (Original version in French by Émilie Vanderhulst)