Science policy. Seeking scientific autonomy

A European Research Council must promote genuine competition

HISTORICALLY, the European Union has not bothered with funding much basic scientific research. Such activities have mainly remained the preserve of national governments, not least because giving scientists free rein can lead to discoveries that not only make money but ultimately enhance military might.

That attitude is now changing. The European Commission proposes to establish a European Research Council (ERC) that would spend a maximum of euro12 billion ($14 billion) over seven years on "blue skies" research. While the plans are being generally welcomed by Europe's member states, their details are problematic.

The proposed ERC is intended to make Europe more competitive. Europe has some first-class universities, scientific institutions and research organisations. But, the ERC's proponents argue, their activities are fragmented, so they are not reaching their full potential.

In America, teams from across the country compete with each other for grants from the National Science Foundation. The proposed ERC is modelled on this scheme. It would award grants to individual research teams for a specific project, solely on the basis of scientific merit judged by peer review. If the ERC were created, scientists from across Europe would compete with each other for funds, rather than merely competing with their fellow countrymen, as happens at present.

This compares with the limited funding for basic research that currently exists in the EU, which places its emphasis on collaboration between researchers. It is open only to researchers in a narrow range of disciplines chosen by the European Parliament and the commission. The ERC would be quite different, placing its emphasis on competition between researchers and leaving scientists themselves to decide which areas of science to pursue. Helga Nowotny, who chairs the European Research Advisory Board - an advisory body to the commission - says that winning a grant from the ERC could come to be seen as unmistakable recognition of research excellence.

The quality of European research could do with being stepped up a notch. Between 1980 and 2003, Europe had 68 Nobel laureates in medicine, physics and chemistry compared with 154 in America. With competition from China and India, Europe's share could fall further.

One of the reasons for Europe's relatively weak performance is thought to be a lack of genuine competition between Europe's researchers. Another is its poor ability to attract young people into a research career. Recent estimates suggest that Europe needs an extra 700,000 researchers if it is to meet its overall target of raising spending (private, national and EU) on research and development to 3% of GDP by 2010. Many young scientists leave Europe for America once they have finished their training. Dr Nowotny says the ERC could help here too. It could establish a scheme to give young researchers the opportunity to follow their own ideas and become independent at an earlier stage in their careers, encouraging talent to stay in Europe.

Scientists or policymakers?

The crucial issue now is whether the ERC will be able to set its own research agenda, free from the interference and bureaucracy of the commission and influence of member states. Last month, 22 leading European scientists charged with shaping the ERC's scientific strategy (Dr Nowotny is one of them) met for the first time to start hammering out a charter and constitution. Serious concerns remain over the legal structure of the body.

Rudiger Hesse of the Max Planck Institute in Germany argues that the world's most successful research institutes - those with the most Nobel prizes to their names - are run by scientists and not policymakers. He has much support. Many scientists are wary of the commission's suggestion to set up the ERC as an executive agency - a legal body ultimately answerable to the commission. They argue it could result in the commission ignoring advice from its panel of 22 scientists and using political criteria to determine which areas of science should take priority. They have sought, and received, assurances from the commission that it will not interfere in this way.

Others back the alternative option of establishing the ERC as a legal entity entirely separate from the commission. The main scientific organisations representing researchers in Britain, France, Germany, Poland and Spain have all expressed support for this model. The idea has also found favour with some members of the European Parliament and some member-state governments - but for somewhat different reasons.

Achilleas Mitsos, director-general of the commission's research division, says some countries - he wouldn't say which - would like the ERC to be set up under a structure that ensures its budget is distributed according to quotas for each member state. Mr Mitsos says these nations favour establishing the ERC as separate from the commission because the resulting independent body would be vulnerable to the principle of juste retour. In other words, countries would get back in the form of research grants a proportion of their overall contribution to the total budget and to hell with scientific merit.

The final decision on the ERC's legal form, on a date yet unspecified, rests with the European Parliament and member states in the European Council. If both are genuine in their support for the ERC and Europe's aim of becoming more competitive, then they must find a way of keeping the ERC free from political interference. Europe would benefit from a competition for its best researchers which rewards scientific excellence. A quasi-competition that recognises how many votes each member state is allotted would be pointless.

Article argues that the proposed new European Research Council must promote genuine competition. Thus, it should be independent of the European Commission and not become an EU executive agency.