First objective achieved. On the role of research for the success of the "Lisbon strategy", the European Commission (and especially Philippe Busquin) have got the result which was by no means a foregone conclusions from the start. They have managed to attract the attention not only of the political authorities, but also of economic circles, and a proportion of public opinion, to Europe's shortcomings and delays in this fields compared to its main rivals, and to the seriousness of the situation. The Commission's analyses and the tireless work of Mr Busquin and his team make it quite clear today that without a good kick-start and soon, the EU has no chance of becoming the "most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world" by 2010. This Lisbon objective shouldn't be taken literally, in terms either of content or date, because the other world economic powers are also on the move, some of them extremely quickly, such as China. In its latest texts, the Commission has turned a deaf ear to the "challenges" aspect, and talks of a "competitive knowledge-based economy, bringing growth, jobs and social cohesion, and respecting our environment". What counts is that a sense of urgency seems to have been created. The Council agrees with the Commission, the European Parliament agrees with both; the consultative bodies came out in favour of increased effort; university, scientific and industrial circles logically took a similar view. Very good. Now that this first objective is in the bag, there are a few pitfalls to be avoided:
1. It is not just a question of money. The Commission's new mantra is the requirement that Member States' expenditure for research, which on average was scarcely 2% of EU GDP, should reach 3%, a similar percentage to that of the US and Japan. This objective was appropriate as it is simple and snappy, and thus gets people moving, but on its own can guarantee neither discoveries nor innovation. Experience and reality show that lots of money can also mean lots of waste, if the State's footing the bill.
2. The private sector must get moving. The Commission's analysis proves that the public contribution to funding research is similar to that of the US; around 2% of GDP. The Americans' private effort is incomparably higher, and causes the divergence in overall efforts highlighted in my previous point. It is true that conditions and tax regimes differ widely on either side of the Atlantic, but European industrial organisations should indicate under what conditions they could double or tripe their research effort, instead of always talking about an increase in public effort or asking for tax breaks. Complaining about excessive State involvement in the economy cannot be resolved by constantly calling for a reduction in tax burden; one must also take on one's responsibilities.
3. Beware bureaucracy. The university world has sometimes artificially sustained misunderstandings. By way of example, all the hoo-hah about unemployed "ricercatori" in Italian universities sprang from a misunderstanding. "Riceratori" translates literally as "researchers", with its implications of scientific research; but in fact they are academics who have passed a competition for a university teaching post, but have yet to be assigned a chair. They could be lawyers, literature experts, or anything else. Their cause is doubtless respectable, but it has nothing to do with scientific research and industrial innovation. Furthermore, the inefficiency of certain large research structures, notably in France, has been looked into and criticised; it's not through a lack of funds that they become inefficient, but by a certain internal ossification and excessive bureaucracy (I have heard amazing stories about research bodies where 80% of the staff are administrators). Nor does the presence of a couple of big names guarantee anything; we've all heard the cliché that Nobel Prizewinners are scientists who had a stroke of genius one day, which allows them to say whatever they like for the rest of their life. This is not to be taken seriously, obviously, but nor should universities and research institutes be put on pedestals.
4. The trouble with mantras… Some mantras should be approached with caution. I remember when the great criticism levelled at the framework research programme of the EEC (in its pre-EU days) was that it was too heavily weighted towards basic research, far removed from practical applications and industrial use. These days, it is criticised for the opposite. It's all about getting the right balance.
Conclusion: dogmatic campaigns, based around increasing public expenditure, are to be avoided. Without reforms and greater attention to the results of research, the effect could be to swell bureaucracy and certain institutions, rather than developing innovation. (F.R.)