Brussels, 25/06/2001 (Agence Europe) - The meeting of research ministers to be held on Tuesday in Luxembourg will allow ministers to hold a policy debate on the proposed 6th Framework Programme on Research and Development (FPRD) which will not be examined by the European Parliament at first reading until the autumn. No decision is expected at this stage but the round the table discussion will allow ministers to clarify the first observations that they had made at the informal meeting in Uppsala (see EUROPE of 5 March, p.10). The Presidency is expected to propose that ministers make their comments known on the thematic priorities of the programme, to cover the period 2002-2006, but also on new instruments (integrated projects, networks of excellence especially), some of which had caused concern in some Member States. In the meantime, the Commission approved a certain number of proposals on specific programmes and on the implementation of cooperation under Article 69 of the Treaty (see EUROPE of 31 May, p.6, and 1 June, p.13). The debate should make it possible to measure whether complementary information provided by the Commission has allowed Member States to waive their reticence. The budgetary dimension of the programme should be discussed over lunch. On the content of the proposed 6th FPRD, see EUROPE of 21 February, p.6.
The other points on the agenda are:
Commissioner Philippe Busquin will present to ministers the first results of the benchmarking exercise for the performance of national research policies. These results very clearly confirm the gap that separates the European Union from the United States and Japan, even if the picture is not as gloomy as some tend to paint it. Research workers only represent 5.3% of the EU's active population as opposed to 8.1% in the United States and 9.3% in Japan. In absolute terms and full time equivalent this represents around 850,000 researchers for the EU and 1.1 million for the United States, that is, a gap of 250,000. Europe, however, has a major asset, as 32,000 young people attain a doctorate in science and technology each year, compared to only 18,000 in the United States. This should make it possible to reduce the gap. The Commissioner, however, will stress that, in order to achieve this, measures must be taken. These measures should above all help to enhance the appeal that research holds for young people and encourage researchers who have left the EU territory to return, while developing an environment that will make it possible to compete with US policy, which favours access to the United States territory for third country research workers. In addition to the increase in human potential required by industry there is the dramatic effect of an ageing population of EU research workers, mainly in some large countries such as France, where 50% of current researchers will be retiring within the next ten years. Even if the drain brain is not as dramatic as some have said, nearly 14,000 EU researchers leave for the United States each year on the basis of the temporary visa programme called H-1B (three years once renewable). The rate of return has in fact risen from 45% in 1980 to 55% today, but the EU loses no fewer than 7,000 researchers annually. Since the early nineties, the United States has stopped increasing the annual quota for H-1B visas, going from 60,000 to 195,000 at the present time, and Commissioner Busquin does not hesitate to speak of the battle of "attraction", or pull, a challenge that Europe must raise at all costs.
According to the calculations of the Commission services, the number of new researchers needed to narrow the gap with the United States and to meet the needs of industry is 50,000 per year, which would amount to having to double the number of doctors in science and technology. Hence the need to promote the arrival of foreign researchers. The Commissioner told journalists that he does not find this solution of selective immigration particularly moral but that it is a mathematical necessity. He noted that two EU countries (Finland and Sweden) surpass the United States in numbers of research workers for every thousand inhabitants, but these two Member States, with Denmark which follows closely behind among the EU leaders, are the only ones to grant tax advantages for recruiting foreign researchers. Thus, in Finland, the law limits income tax to 35% for foreign research workers during a period of two years. It is also this kind of information that is provided by the benchmarking exercise, an exercise that should be followed by other EU Member States.
Even if each country has its own weaknesses and strengths, this voluminous compilation of figures clearly shows a leading trio (Sweden, Finland and Denmark), which has a large number of doctorates and researchers for every 1000 inhabitants. Sweden and Finland also win as far as global investment in research is concerned (compared to GDP), the number of patents per million inhabitants and the number of scientific publications. These two Member States also systematically appear among those that have the largest rate of growth for the same aggregates, whereas other countries (Ireland, Portugal and Spain) have recorded good progress. The bad pupils are undeniably Italy and Greece, and to a lesser extent Spain, where 2% of all researchers are unemployed.
Mr Busquin will also present to ministers the two Commission communications on mobility (see EUROPE of 23 June, p.13) and the international dimension of the European Research Area which was adopted on Monday (see following article).