Philippe Busquin Research Articles

From the creation of the European research area in 2000 to a Mission on cancer in Europe in 2021-lessons learned and implications.

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.

EuroGentest standing up to scrutiny — first year demonstrates good progress harmonizing community approaches

the enlarged community is seen as a main priority for the European Commission. However, many areas are deeply rooted in national politics. For example, cancer and cardiovascular care have usually long been considered one of the main responsibilities for the national health services. Thus, although there are encouraging signs that expertise in more traditional areas is being more widely shared, real progress is being made in the relatively new disciplines, such as allergology and genetics. This applies particularly to genetic testing for a variety of reasons. Firstly the scope of genetic testing has to transcend national boundaries. Rare mutations by their nature occur infrequently and in highly diverse locations, which means it is simply impractical and indeed impossible for every genetic testing laboratory to have the expertise to analyse and interpret all results. For this reason, sample referral across borders has long been common practice. This close working and knowledge sharing is reflected in the spirit of cooperation apparent in the European Society of Human Genetics. Another key issue is the specialized counselling needed both before and after testing. Again to develop the necessary expertise and training platforms is an immense task, difficult to achieve where there is intense competition for resources. Furthermore, even though genetic disorder patient support groups are among the most active and dedicated, their ability to contribute is limited due to the highly competitive patients’ advocacy groups. For these reasons there was a growing consensus amongst stakeholders that a pan-European initiative was needed. What was missing was a vehicle and a final impetus. The vehicle has turned out to be a Network of Excellence (NoE), which enables stakeholders to work together and provide both practical help and recommendations, which can be adapted easily by national bodies. There were then two main stimuli. The first was concern in Italy about the levels of counselling being given to patients, and the second was the eagerness of new member states to take a common approach to improving their genetic testing services. The actual project was initiated as a consequence of a study performed at the initiative of the Institute for Prospective Technology Studies (IPTS) in Seville. In response to a call to action by a former commissioner and member of the European Parliament, Philippe Busquin, who remains a staunch supporter, a consortium was assembled, led by Jean-Jacques Cassiman of the Leuven Catholic University in Belgium and successfully applied to the EU in 2004 for funding over 5 years to create a European Network of Excellence (NoE) in genetic testing. J Appl Genet 47(1), 2006, pp.

Balancing the books

A report evaluating how to attract more Europeans into scientific careers couldn't have come at a better time. Jose Mariano Gago, Portugal's former science minister, delivered the strategy document to European research commissioner Philippe Busquin this month — just weeks after leading senior French scientists voted to strike over the limited prospects for their younger colleagues (see Nature 428, 241; 2004).

Research politics, bottom up.

Now that the scientists‘ cause is supported by several European governments, most notably Denmark and France, it seems that, at last, the EC is willing to act. Or that was the gist of the presentation Achilleas Mitsos, Director General of the EC Research Directorate‐General (DG Research), gave at the meeting ’A European Research Council for all sciences‘ in Dublin, Ireland, this October. What Mitsos laid out was nothing short of a revolution in the EC's funding policy: EC Commissioner for Research Philippe Busquin would ask for at least an additional €1 billion from the general EU budget to be spent exclusively on competitive basic research. These grants would have none of the strings attached that have made the Framework Programmes so unpopular among research scientists. “The basis should be competition and not collaboration,” Mitsos said, adding “in our mind there should be exclusively one criterion and that is scientific excellence.” Furthermore, scientists would be involved in every step and at every level of the decision‐making process, to make sure that the money is spent effectively and wisely. For the more than 80 scientists attending the meeting, it sounded like Christmas and Easter had fallen on the same day, particularly as Mitsos' announcement lacked any ambiguity. Michael Ryan, President of the Royal Irish Academy, seemed to have anticipated this when he commented in his opening speech that “the tectonic plates are moving at last.” > For most scientists, there is no question that only an independent and autonomous European Research Council, run by Europe's top scientists, can ensure efficiency and quality Mitsos overlooked one important detail in his presentation: who is going to distribute the extra funding? Although he remarked towards the end of his presentation that “[the EC] will be very open to any form [of governance] that will maximize the …

A European Research Council with new funding moves closer

The move to establish a European Research Council (ERC) has the firm support of EU Research Commissioner Philippe Busquin, although the source of funding is still debated. Visit www.three-fives.com for the latest advanced semiconductor industry news

Poles apart?: EU-US Views of Energy Policy

In mid-June there were smiles all round in Brussels as the European Union and the United States signed a cooperation agreement on fuel cells technology. The agreement 1 1 See “Fuel cells agreement: EU and US forge links to provide sustainable energy sources for the future,” http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/03/846|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display= , aimed at strengthening research links between the two economic superpowers, was brokered by European Research Commissioner Philippe Busquin and US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. Subsequently, in late June in Washington the EU signed a US-led agreement involving an international charter on carbon dioxide capture and storage 2 2 See “US Hosts Inaugural Forum for Carbon Sequestration Research and Development,” http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?PUBLIC_ID=13600&BT_CODE=PR_PRESSRELEASES&TT_CODE=PRESSRELEASE . US correspondent, Don Smith reports.

EU—US agreement on fuel cell R&D collaboration

The US and the European Union have signed a top-level agreement that aims to strengthen research links by bringing together researchers from both the public and private sectors in both regions. The agreement was brokered by EC Research Commissioner Philippe Busquin and US Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, who signed the Fuel Cell Annex — the first addition to the EU—US Non-Nuclear Energy Cooperation Agreement they signed in May 2001 — during the European Commission’s special conference on ‘The Hydrogen Economy — A Bridge to Sustainable Development’ in Brussels in mid-June [see Feature, pp. 10–12]. Visit www.re-focus.net for the latest renewable energy industry news

Footing the bill.

When the discussion turns to the creation of a European Research Council (ERC), a series of questions spring to mind. Answering some of them is now almost trivial—for example, “Why is an ERC needed and timely?”—whereas the answers to others, being more political, are certainly more difficult to envisage for most practising scientists. This is notably the case for the questions: “Who will be the ERC's founders?” and moreover, “Who will pay?” Indeed, the financial aspect is probably the most sensitive and challenging issue associated with the creation of an ERC because it may determine the political support required, as well as the timetable for its establishment and the ambitions of its programmes. And those who are ready to pay are scarce. Several funding possibilities can be envisaged, with varying probabilities of becoming reality. Charities, for example, may certainly become one of the funding sources, although probably neither a reliable one in the long‐term, because of unpredictability, nor a main one, as funds may need to be targeted to specific programmes in line with the missions of the charity. Industry is also considered by some—wishful thinking—to be a potential source. European Commissioner Philippe Busquin commented at the Danish Presidency Conference in October last year, “A certain amount of fresh funding is […] essential, and it could and should be provided to a significant extent by businesses, for example, through foundations.” But during the meeting organized in Paris by the European Life Sciences Forum (ELSF) in February 2003 (Breithaupt, 2003; van Dyck & Peerenboom, 2003), both Hans van den Berg, from Akzo Nobel, Arnhem, The Netherlands, and the Animal Cell Technology Industry Platform, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and Horst Domdey, from the company BioM, which promotes the BioTech Region in Munich, Germany, clearly stated that, although it supports the …

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

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

Science and war. The conflict in the Middle East has started a discussion in academic circles about the responsibility of scientists in times of political turmoil.

‘The intifada reaches the ivory tower’, proclaimed the Israeli daily newspaper Ha'aretz in its May 15 issue. Indeed it has. The shockwaves from Palestinian suicide bombings and Israel's war against terrorism in the West Bank territory are reverberating through scientific and educational organisations around the world. The trigger for the headline was an open letter, published on April 6 in the British daily newspaper The Guardian and signed by more than 130 scientists from Europe and Israel. It called for a moratorium on further European cooperation with Israeli scientific and cultural institutions ‘until Israel abides by UN resolutions and opens serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians […].’ The letter created a flurry of further petitions for and against a boycott as well as articles and editorials in European and Israeli newspapers. The waves of the debate finally reached the secluded shores of various science islands in Europe and the scientific journals at the beginning of May, when Nature devoted its editorial to the topic. The journal has since published correspondence both for and against an academic boycott. The scientists calling for a boycott are dismayed with Israel's incursions into the West Bank and its treatment of the Palestinian population. They think that the political community, particularly the US government and the EU, is not doing enough to restrain either side from further escalating the spiral of violence and thus call for additional pressure on the Israeli government. ‘We view the situation as in the case of the South African boycott,’ explained Steven Rose, a neurobiologist and Director of the Brain and Behaviour Research Group at the Open University in the UK, and the initiator of the open letter. ‘I feel that the civil society has to stand up and do something about it. […] There are ways in which we …

GENDER BIAS IN EUROPEAN SCIENCE

A PATTERN OF DISCRIMINAtion against women in science is confirmed by a new study covering 30 European countries, says European Commission, which published report of Helsinki Group on Women & Science. There is considerable wastage of women's skills and knowledge as a result of leaky pipeline/ whereby women drop out of scientific careers in disproportionate numbers at every level, report states. And although women constitute majority of undergraduate students majoring in life sciences in Europe, the nearer top of academic hierarchy, lower proportion of women. Indeed, universally, women are just a tiny minority of people in top scientific jobs. The data demonstrate that women scientists are indeed underrepresented in key positions of scientific research, EC Research Commissioner Philippe Busquin says. 'This confirms that picture painted in preliminary studies is not an emotional one, but result of discrimination arising from multiple factors. ...

Science in Europe. Biomedical research and international collaboration.

First aired 2 years ago by European research chief Philippe Busquin, the concept of a European Research Area to promote cross-border research projects and to help coordinate research across the continent has won acclaim. But implementation--particularly the role for basic research in the ERA--is hotly debated. Science has solicited the views of four prominent European statesmen on this issue. [Enric Banda][1] leads off with a discussion of ways in which a European Research Council can serve as a support structure and how the European Science Foundation can be involved. In counterpoint, [Sir George Radda][2] comments that scientific networking across Europe is proceeding well without the need for a new administrative structure. [Hans Wigzell][3] believes that the Framework Programme itself needs to be split into a European Research Council and an Innovation Council to promote large projects. [Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker][4] suggests strategies that will aid small science and provide a bottom-up approach. [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5554/443a [2]: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5554/445 [3]: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5554/443b [4]: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5554/446

Implementing the European Research Area

First aired 2 years ago by European research chief Philippe Busquin, the concept of a European Research Area to promote cross-border research projects and to help coordinate research across the continent has won acclaim. But implementation--particularly the role for basic research in the ERA--is hotly debated. Science has solicited the views of four prominent European statesmen on this issue. [Enric Banda][1] leads off with a discussion of ways in which a European Research Council can serve as a support structure and how the European Science Foundation can be involved. In counterpoint, [Sir George Radda][2] comments that scientific networking across Europe is proceeding well without the need for a new administrative structure. [Hans Wigzell][3] believes that the Framework Programme itself needs to be split into a European Research Council and an Innovation Council to promote large projects. [Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker][4] suggests strategies that will aid small science and provide a bottom-up approach. [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5554/443a [2]: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5554/445 [3]: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5554/443b [4]: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5554/446

Science in Europe. Framework programmes evolve.

First aired 2 years ago by European research chief Philippe Busquin, the concept of a European Research Area to promote cross-border research projects and to help coordinate research across the continent has won acclaim. But implementation--particularly the role for basic research in the ERA--is hotly debated. Science has solicited the views of four prominent European statesmen on this issue. Enric Banda leads off with a discussion of ways in which a European Research Council can serve as a support structure and how the European Science Foundation can be involved. In counterpoint, Sir George Radda comments that scientific networking across Europe is proceeding well without the need for a new administrative structure. Hans Wigzell believes that the Framework Programme itself needs to be split into a European Research Council and an Innovation Council to promote large projects. Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker suggests strategies that will aid small science and provide a bottom-up approach.

Reaching the inner ear of the EC: How scientists lobby for their interests at the European Commission.

In 1999, one US university alone spent US$ 760 000 on lobbying politicians for funding to improve its science facilities. Boston University was criticised when it contracted a professional lobbying agency, Cassidy & Associates, to do the ‘dirty’ work. And that is how it would be considered in the medieval world of European science politics. Welcome to the arcane, unintuitive and dimly lit labyrinth of the European Commission (EC). While some wander the narrow passageways with no more than a tallow torch to light their way, eventually joining the dusty skeletons, others seem to be friends with its keepers, and know the passwords to the secret rooms. Many scientists lament their lack of influence in the EC, and spend years knocking on closed doors; others have rapid success. Two factors appear to play a critical role: how big you are, and who your friends are. Size is important; a scientific organisation that represents a large number of members is more attractive to the EC than an individual voice. But to be effective it must speak with a single voice. Furthermore, basic researchers must become immersed in the economic and social implications of their research, and, most importantly, follow the tracks laid out by the EC. This is one side to the Commission. The other is a culture shrouded in mystery, and completely impenetrable to all but the initiated; a world that works on long established, trusted contacts, and a code of respect and honour. It has even been likened to the honour‐bound way of the Samurai. > Industry platforms span the twilight zone between a spark of genius in a scientist's mind, and a development of socio‐economic importance But let us start with size. Where academic organisations have fallen far behind in the race to the EC's ears, relative newcomers, such …

E-BioSci enterprise

In the wake of the Public Library of Science debate, September saw the launch of the new E-BioSci project, an effort to set up Europe as a pioneer in the establishment of an electronic scientific publishing system open to all. Describing the initiative as ‘…an opportunity not to be missed, both to increase the competitiveness of our editorial industry and to improve access for researchers and society in general to quality scientific publications’, EU Research Commissioner Philippe Busquin declared an award of 2.4 million Euros to E-BioSci. The database will interlink genomic and proteomic data with the latest in life sciences research literature, providing free availability to much published material, speed of access, back-up facilities, and streamlined searches to help researchers crosslink and navigate the ever-increasing volume of biological information. The E-BioSci project coordinator Les Grivell (from EMBO) cited statistics showing that in 1988, 20 000 new biotech database records were created on an annual basis. By the year 2000, this many records were being added daily.The main participants in the project include publishers, scientists, libraries and funding agencies from Germany, Spain, France and the UK, coming together in a virtual network that is being seen as the nucleus of a European Research Area (ERA). Julio Celis, representing both the Federation of Biochemical Societies and the European Molecular Biology Conference, stated that ‘we have to be careful not to give everything for free, otherwise we won't exist any more’. But Celis was also well disposed towards the initiative, remarking ‘it will help less favoured countries gain faster access to information that is already there’. S de B (http://dbs.cordis.lu)

Speech by Commissioner Philippe Busquin

Speech by Commissioner Philippe Busquin

ITER Gets Boost from European Commission

For decades, the promise of fusion energy has had a bad rap for hovering perpetually 20 or more years down the road. That’s a reputation supporters may soon get a chance to change if cash comes through for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. In late February, the European Commission included 200 million euros (roughly $187 million) toward the $4 billion tokamak in its draft Sixth Framework Programme, the European R&D budget for 2003–06.The inclusion of ITER, which is intended to show the feasibility of fusion energy, came after Europe’s research ministers gave the project the nod. At an informal gathering in January, they discussed four scenarios: wiping out fusion research, cutting back to a US-style science-only fusion program, proceeding with an ITER that would be constructed abroad, or supporting ITER at a level such that it could be built in Europe. The research ministers favored pursuing the last two options simultaneously, according to observers.“It’s a big step toward proceeding with ITER,” says Karl Lackner, who heads the European Fusion Development Agreement from Garching, Germany. “It comes in the wake of other steps, such as the proposal to consider Cadarache [the French nuclear research center] as a site. This sequence builds momentum.”Europe’s ITER partners are Japan and Russia, the US having dropped out in 1998. Since then, the plans for ITER have been scaled down in size and cost (see Physics Today, March 2000, page 65, and September 2000, page 56). At the soonest, construction could start around 2004, with operations beginning eight or so years later.But fusion researchers’ pleasure at the prospect of starting to build ITER is tempered by an overall cut in fusion funding. When the total Sixth Framework Progamme had to be trimmed by 300 million euros to 17.5 billion euros, fusion took the brunt, losing 100 million euros. That cut is widely seen as being politically motivated, since Budget Commissioner Michaele Schreyer is a member of Germany’s Green Party, which opposes fusion energy.Despite the cut to the fusion budget, Research Commissioner Philippe Busquin pumped up the amount earmarked for ITER, from 120 million to 200 million euros. Asked why by members of the European Parliament, Busquin said, “I think we have to think about this issue. We cannot postpone a decision [on ITER] any longer.”As it stands, the draft Sixth Framework Programme allots 700 million euros for fusion, including the ITER money, falling shy of the 788 million euros in the present budget, which runs through 2002. The European money covers about 40% of Europe’s fusion research, with the rest coming from national budgets.The shortfall is likely to pit ITER against other fusion projects, such as the Joint European Torus in the UK and the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator in Germany. “It poses a real dilemma,” says Lackner. “But the fact that ITER is specifically mentioned means we should use this budget to start something new.”There’s a “fighting chance” that fusion funding will be upped, Lackner adds. The Sixth Framework Programme—whose main areas are genomics and biotechnology, information technology, nanotechnology, aeronautics and space, food safety and health risks, sustainable development and global change, and citizens and governance in European society—still has to wind its way through both the European Council, which includes strong proponents of fusion, and the European Parliament, which appears to be divided on this issue. Changes in both the amounts and areas of funding are likely.© 2001 American Institute of Physics.

New Framework programme goes up 17 per cent

The budget for a new Framework programme for the European Union has been boosted by a 17 percent increase over that allocated to the previous programme. The proposals for this new programme, to be run between 2003 and 2006, were presented on 21 February 2001 by research commisioner Philippe Busquin. Genomics and biotechnology that are of benefit to the health industry lay among the key priorities on which the financial resources, totalling EUR17.5 billion, will be concentrated. While praising the important raise in funding, which will permit Europe to catch up with the research budget increase just announced by the USA, many members of the European Parliament also highlighted the necessity to recruit more young people to research. AR

The discovery of functional genomics. EU announces new funding approach for European research.

The discovery of functional genomics. EU announces new funding approach for European research.