A challenge for the EU.

A new partnership between science and politics. European scientists ought to adapt to new research policy paradigms.

Europe's response to bioterrorism starts slowly but gathers pace

T he now-classic National Science Foundation book Science, the Endless Frontier by Vannevar Bush, published in 1945, portrays science as an exploration of the unknown and an effort to understand ourselves and the world around us. This approach has proved to be highly successful, generating new discoveries that have had major economic and social impacts and truly changed the societies we live in. In 1997, the European Commission (EC) published a book titled Society, the Endless Frontier-A European Vision of Research and Innovation Policies for the 21st Century. This vision complements classical science and technology-driven policy with a problem-driven approach by directly addressing the many complex issues facing our societies, such as global change, ecological sustainability, genetically modified organisms, and energy and transportation systems. It is becoming increasingly obvious that tackling planetwide issues requires extensive international research collaborations and multidisciplinary approaches, as well as the integration of contributions from basic and applied research, the application of new technologies and industrial processes, socioeconomic analyses, and even ethical considerations. It is also important to integrate the results all the way to policy alternatives with estimates of their costs and benefits, impacts and risks. This approach is being adopted in many countries today. But it is particularly important in Europe, where such questions are often complicated by the varying cultural and linguistic traditions of the 15 European Union (EU) member countries of today, and perhaps more than 30 tomorrow. The landscape of European research and its collaborative aspects is complex. For large-scale facilities, separate organizations have been set up, some of them in collaboration on a global level, such as CERN for particle physics and the European Space Agency for space studies. However, most research is conducted in national programs with national funding. A new initiative—the European Research Area, launched by the EC in January 2000—sets out a strategy for a frontier-free research policy in Europe through improved cooperation between researchers in the member states. About 15 percent of European public research investments are devoted to collaborative efforts, including about 5 percent to the EU research programs. The EU has just launched a new 4-year framework program for research and technological development, with a budget of 15 billion Euros. It has been structured to cover topics in four thematic areas: the life sciences; developing a user-friendly information society; competitive and sustainable growth; and energy, environment, and sustainable development. The majority of funding is devoted to 23 key “actions” that address, in a multidisciplinary manner, areas such as nutrition and health, control of infectious diseases, telecommunication standards and electronic commerce, sustainable transport and mobility, and global change. Such problems require multinational, even global, approaches, and hence they are natural choices for multilateral EU research. As an example of the success of this approach, research on European telecommunication standards, involving industry, the basic research community, and government, has laid the foundation for the worldwide success of the European mobile phone and wireless communication systems, such as Nokia and Vodaphone. Science collaborations on bilateral levels between the United States and many European countries have long and successful traditions. To complement these bilateral arrangements, the EU and United States signed an agreement on cooperation in science and technology in early 1998 to address questions calling for wide international collaborations. Agreements similar to the EU-U.S. collaboration have also been made with other major countries. Many policy-related topics are being debated, and there are conflicting national and societal interests, such as those regarding genetically modified organisms. But this is merely one more reason why these issues should be studied jointly: to arrive at the best solutions before collisions arise in the trade arena or elsewhere. Research collaboration is clearly a non-zero-sum game: It benefits all partners and contributes to the solution of common, complex, and vitally important challenges.

If you want to harvest in the autumn, you need to sow in spring. This ancient wisdom holds true not only for agriculture, but for all economic activities. When nations turned their focus from agriculture to industry, the definition of ‘sowing’ and ‘harvesting’ changed. The latter is relatively easy to identify: it is the nation's wealth in terms of economic growth, employment level, per capita income, exports, and so on. Such achievements point the way not only to re‐election of the politicians who ensure a rich harvest, but also to the well‐being of all its citizens. Slightly harder to define is the ‘sowing’ part—the public and private investments that guarantee economic growth and high employment in the long term. After the industrial revolution took place, governments needed simply to ensure that the social, political and financial structures were in place to encourage entrepreneurs to start businesses and create new jobs in the emerging industrial sector. Now, at a time of globalization, international corporations move to where they can find the best opportunities in terms of employee salaries and governmental incentives. It follows that robust manufacturing processes are being transferred from their traditional locations in the developed world to areas that offer the best financial projections and the lowest cost structures. As a result, the so‐called advanced economies have to find new ways to maintain their privileged status. The common solution is to focus on new discoveries that bring with them ownership of commercially valuable intellectual property and require a phase of development and manufacturing in a highly skilled environment. Thus, the seeds that need to be sown are now investments, from both industry and government, into science and technology, with the aim of creating well‐paid jobs in the high‐tech sector and new products for an increasingly demanding global market. > It …

T he gross domestic product of the European Union (EU) bloc is roughly equivalent to that of the United States, but the EU invests $60 billion less a year (around 33%) in R&D than does the United States. This disparity exists even in the slightly larger group of countries that soon will make up the EU research system (a total of nearly 30 countries). Part of this differential is due to less investment by European enterprises and part to less public funding of science. To ensure that Europe can remain competitive and participate in burgeoning global scientific collaborations, it is imperative that the EU both increase investment in R&D and renew its collaborative mechanisms. Looking at Europe as a whole, the administration of science and technology has been a loose conglomerate of individual European countries in combination with that promoted by the European Commission (EC) in Brussels. Most of the collaborative structures in European science [such as CERN, the European Molecular Biology Organization, European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), European Science Foundation, and European Synchrotron Radiation Facility] were established in the early 1970s. Since then, Europe has developed a single market and a single currency and is working toward a single defense policy and fiscal harmonization, but the organization of science has been trailing behind and is fragmented and, therefore, duplicative—the benefit of joining forces is not being maximized. Europe needs to move beyond this limited set of mechanisms for coordinating the research effort. The imperatives of increased competitiveness and collaboration must be nurtured at the European level. The ESF Collaborative Research Programmes (EUROCORES) is attempting to do this by bringing together national collaborative research funding in a coordinated manner to address new and important topics. A multinational approach is unavoidable, but it will profit from a common call for proposals and the establishment of a network of funders. The aim of this and other initiatives is to enhance collaboration between countries and their national and international research organizations (as we have seen in the case of EMBL and its associated structures[*][1]), lubricated by the EC, as the key for the construction of a true Europe of science. In an attempt to address these issues, Commissioner Philippe Busquin, in charge of research in the EC, is promoting the establishment of a European Research Area (see ). The positive reaction to this initiative from ministers for research of EU countries suggests that science in Europe will not be allowed to fall behind. Indeed, a recent debate in Lisbon, hosted by Portuguese Minister Jose Mariano Gago, between the research ministers, Commissioner Busquin, and a number of Nobel laureates and representatives from European scientific (academic and industrial) organizations concluded that despite the present reasonably good health of science in Europe, further support is needed, in terms of both political commitment and increased funding for basic research. Further support has come from the European Council (Heads of Governments) summit in Lisbon in March 2000, which, as well as endorsing the EC's initiative for better integration and coordination of research activities at national and EU levels, also noted that the provision for an EU-wide broadband network, facilitating researcher mobility, and retaining high-quality research talent within Europe are key issues that must be addressed within a short time. It is clear that whether in Europe, the United States, or any other part of the world, scientists need new and better mechanisms for collaboration. It is also clear that the mechanisms for international and intercontinental collaboration are not in place. The advent of new technologies in communications, particularly the new broadband capabilities, is making global collaboration increasingly easy, and it seems likely that such collaborations will ultimately become the norm. This requires new ways of conducting research, such as remote control of experiments and interaction with large dispersed databases and models. It also requires new administrative mechanisms that are unbureaucratic, efficient, free of political objectives, and operate between research organizations. The responsibility for developing these mechanisms is firmly on the shoulders of the science administrators and the politicians. The solutions that the EU develops for breaking down its own boundaries to research may help provide a model for the rest of the world. [1]: #fn-1

The EU Response to COVID-19: From Reactive Policies to Strategic Decision-Making.

Policies in place throughout the world: action by the European Union

Let's face it: The proposal for the sixth European R&D Framework Program by research Commissioner Philippe Busquin[*][1] could have been a lot worse. In fact, if it survives the scrutiny of the Council of Ministers and sails through the European Parliament without too much damage, it will offer substantial benefit for science policy in Europe. These are big ifs, admittedly. For one thing, industry and the business sector do not seem overenthusiastic because they see too much emphasis on basic research. The constituency in the science and engineering community that has become dependent on previous framework programs may feel left out in the cold, and the traditional peddlers of national interest may feel deprived of power to guide the commission in the “right direction.” If the history of the previous programs is any guide, all this may lead to substantial changes in the present proposal during the upcoming wrestling matches between special interest groups. But as it stands, the proposal delivers on the promise of Busquin's vision of a European Research Area (ERA).[†][2] The existing science system in Europe is a collection of jealously guarded national systems, resulting in a lot of waste and undue fragmentation. Europe should spend more public money on science to compete, but it must also use the available financial resources and talent much more effectively than it does now. In formulating the ERA, Busquin demonstrated the urgency of the problem and presented an outline for a solution. The new framework proposal aims to bring this ERA closer to reality. For example, collaboration between national R&D organizations is to be strengthened to overcome the competitive disadvantages of the science system in Europe. The objectives of the Framework Program will thus be reoriented from promoting collaboration among individual scientists to promoting collaboration among research organizations. The ideas are still vague and lack operational specificity, but the opportunity to build on these modest beginnings should be taken up. Collaboration between research councils can take various forms. For example, the European Science Foundation has introduced the EUROCORES mechanism, directed at joint planning and execution of bottom-up research programs.[‡][3] Such concepts should be expanded to include joint planning and investment in research infrastructure. The new plan offers European Union (EU) support for such activities. In doing so, it recognizes the limited ability of the EU's bureaucracy to micromanage programs. Such courageous recognition is a necessary condition for improvement. Industry and commerce should welcome the plan because it is directed at improving the European science system, which will lead to better science and better scientists and engineers. Europe's competitiveness depends on the effective transfer of ideas from generation to commercial application and exploitation in new and existing companies; this transfer in turn depends entirely on the quality of the people we educate and train in our higher education system. Especially in fast-moving areas of science, where the rate of discovery cannot be transmitted in the traditional education chain, it is vital that scientists and engineers have firsthand experience at these new frontiers. Creative and effective application of technology in new products and services must be supported by entrepreneurial skills in recognizing opportunities and marketing products. Science and technology policy, whether at the national or European level, should be directed at creating the conditions to achieve and sustain this dynamic. The present proposal shows that this has been recognized, as it emphasizes the need and promises to support collaboration between science and industry. At the Lisbon summit in March 2000, the EU government leaders requested from the European Commission a proposal for a program that can assist and stimulate the emergence of a creative and entrepreneurial spirit in the European research and innovation system. To achieve that, issues of mobility, patenting, taxation, competition, and collaboration will have to be tackled. Most of these issues are outside the responsibilities of the Commissioner for Research, but the present Framework Program proposal is a step in the right direction. The fate of the proposal in the coming months will be an interesting test of the political commitment to a change in European R&D policy. Let us see what remains by the end of this year. [1]: #fn-1 [2]: #fn-2 [3]: #fn-3

Data protection and research in the European Union: a major step forward, with a step back

One of Europe’s major weaknesses lies in its inferiority in terms of transforming the results of technological research and skills into innovations and competitive advantages (European Commission, 1995, p. 8). Technology transfer is a key aspect of economic development and research administration. These concerns are shared equally between academia and industry on both sides of the Atlantic. As technology is developed at a greater rate, concerns about the technology transfer will heighten. This article focuses on technology transfer in Ireland, particularly in the SME (Small and Medium size Enterprises, under 250 employees) sector. As the main Lisbon Objective has not been met in Europe (“Europe is to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion”), the authors suggest a better model of technology transfer applicable not only to Ireland and Europe, but with possibilities for the United States. Demonstrating the international dimensions of technology transfer, the article also provides an American perspective, demonstrating commonality of interest yet subtle differences. Research Management Review, Volume 15, Number 1 Winter/Spring 2006 2 THE EUROPEAN UNION’S STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE FOR INNOVATION Since the publication of the European Commission’s Green Paper on Innovation, there has been general acknowledgment of the need to address the European Paradox, as outlined in Figure 1, in which EU scientific performance, as measured by number of scientific publications, was deemed superior to the that of the U.S. and Japan but technical performance, as measured by patents, was deemed inferior. Half a decade later, the European Council of Ministers proudly stated in Lisbon that they had reached a clearly identifiable measurable strategic objective. By this decade’s end, Europe is “to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” (Fontaine, 2000, p. 5). Note: DAE=Developing Asian Economies; BERD=Business Enterprise Expenditure on R&D Figure 1: First European Report on Science & Technology Indicators (European Commission, 1994) For the past five years, very influential and powerful European Commission mechanisms, supported by national policies and directives, have driven wave after wave of initiatives, pushing research and enterprise with the aim of overtaking Europe’s main trading partners in terms of effectively commercializing new knowledge. The European Commission’s Enterprise and Industry Directorate has closely measured Europe’s activity in this area, with its latest release in January 2005 of information on EU member country performance as compared to that of the other main trading blocks (European Commission, 2005a). Figure 2, in summarizing recent performance, shows that European performance has not been as good as might be expected. The recent review by The World Economic Forum concludes: “the EU as a whole receives lower scores than the US in seven out of eight Lisbon dimensions” (Blanke & Lopez-Carlos, 2004, p. 14). This has led to open acknowledgment by the highest levels of the Commission that the gap is actually widening. Jose Manuel Barroso, the EU President, bluntly states, “the EU is falling behind on its Lisbon objective of making Europe the most competitive economy in the world” (Barroso, 2005). Propensity of the EU, U.S., Japan and the DAE to produce results a. Scientific performance (number of publications b. Technological performance (number of per million ecus, at 1987 U.S. prices, non-BERD) patents per million ecus, at 1987 U.S. prices, BERD)

Disharmonization in the Regulation of Transgenic Plants in Europe

In the year 2000, cancer research in Europe had the potential to make a difference as it had several unique strengths, such as a strong foundation in biomedical science, good patient registries, infrastructures that spanned from biological repositories to bioinformatic hubs as well as thriving Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) and basic/preclinical cancer research institutions of high international standing. Research, however, was fragmented and lacked coordination. As a result, Europe could not harness its potential for translating basic research discoveries into a clinical setting for the patients' benefit. What was needed was a paradigm shift in cancer research that addressed the translational research continuum. Along these lines, in 2000, European Union (EU) Commissioner Philippe Busquin established the European Research Area (ERA) and in 2002 the European Cancer Research Area (ECRA), and their political approval was a powerful catalyst for the increased involvement of scientists in science policy in the EU. In this report, we briefly describe the actions embraced by the cancer community and cancer organizations in response to Busquin's proposals that led to the creation of the EU Mission on Cancer (MoC) in Horizon 2020 in 2021.

Rare diseases are frequently life-threatening or chronically debilitating and the impact on the quality of life of affected patients and their family members is thus significant. However, drug development for these conditions has been limited by a lack of understanding of the underlying mechanisms of disease and the relative unavailability of subjects for clinical trials, as well as the prohibitive cost of investing in a novel pharmaceutical agent with poor market potential. Nevertheless, the introduction of Orphan Drug legislations has provided important incentives for the development of orphan drugs (i.e. drugs that have been abandoned or 'orphaned' by major drug companies). Moreover, recent studies on rare diseases, including inherited immunodeficiencies and metabolic disorders, have served not only to alleviate the plight of patients with rare diseases, but also yielded valuable information on biological processes of relevance for other, more common conditions. These lessons, along with the crucial importance of cooperation between academic institutions, pharmaceutical companies, patient advocacy groups and society in the elucidation of rare diseases, are highlighted in the present review.

After Lithuanian’s accession to the European Union (EU) in 2004, the citizens of Lithuania gained one of the four freedoms of the EU: it is a freedom to move, work and live in another EU and European economic area (EEE) country. Now workers can live in one country and work in another, they can even work in more than one country. While Lithuanian business can look for specialist in another EU country if there are no any in Lithuania. Consequently the free movement of workers did effect on the Lithuanian business development and employment itself. During the economic crisis the unemployment rate started to grow in many EU countries. Especially youth unemployment appeared as one of major issues. For Lithuanian economy high unemployment rate was and still is a serious problem. The free movement of workers is a challenge not only for the Lithuanian citizens but for employers as well. According to the strategy Europe 2020, the mobility could be as a solution in reducing high unemployment, which was reached during the economic crisis. With reference to the above, it could be stated that balanced labour movement could play a significant role in boosting business development and employment in the EU and the EEE. The dissemination of information about legal regulations of free movement of workers takes an important place in this regard. Accordingly a network of consultants, the European Employment Services (EURES), initiated by the European Commission (EC) is highly focused to this issue. EURES is acting in all the members of the EU as well as EEE. EURES is responsible for information, advice and placement services for jobseekers and employers wishing to benefit from the principle of the free movement of persons. The network has its consultants in ten cities of Lithuania as well and it covers all main regions of the state. Considering the above mentioned, the article solves the scientific problem: how EURES network’s activities could impact employment and business development in the EU and Lithuania? The aim of this paper is to study peculiarities of legal regulations of free movement of workers in the EU and importance of EURES network’s activities as well as its relevance to employment and business development in the EU and Lithuania. To achieve this aim three tasks were solved: to present the main topicalities of employment and its relevance to business development in the EU and Lithuania; to analyse the legal aspects of free movement of workers in the EU; to highlight the main EURES network’s activities reducing unemployment in the EU and Lithuania. The paper presents a combination of several research methods: comparative analysis of Lithuanian and international scientific works; comparative analysis and interpretation of the EU legal documents, strategies and practical papers; comparative and explanatory analysis of secondary statistic data; the paper includes the case study of EURES network activities in Lithuania. The results of the article: there were presented the main topicalities of employment and its relevance to business development in the EU and Lithuania; there were highlighted the main legal aspects of free movement of workers in the EU; there were highlighted the main EURES network’s activities, reducing unemployment, balancing labour market and boosting business development in the EU and Lithuania by disseminating information about free movement of workers. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.eis.0.8.6972

Enterprises seek for possibilities to limit the costs and for areas that stimulate the level of innovation. Both of these aspects can be effectively supported by application of cloud computing, without a simultaneous need to make a choice of a trade-off type. The aim of the article is to prove that cloud computing provides entrepreneurs with the possibility to limit the costs and at the same time to support their activities related to the selected direction of innovation development. It has both a direct influence on the level and structure of costs in the enterprise, as well as an indirect influence, e.g. related to shortening the time for introduction of new solutions to the market, making decisions or limiting the costs of projects.