Speeches
Scientific
and Research Challenges for Europe within a Globalised World
Janez Potočnik
European Commissioner for Science and
Research
Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies
Harvard University, MA
26 October 2006
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Good afternoon,
Let me start by saying it is a pleasure to be back in the US. It's also nice to
be addressing a roomful of students again – it takes me back to my days when I
taught at university in my home country, Slovenia. But don't feel obliged to
take notes, there won't be a test at the end of this speech.
I'm here to talk about globalisation. What does this word mean? Does it mean
the same to everyone? Probably not.
• Some see it as a challenge, some as an opportunity.
• Some want more globalisation, some want less.
• And some spell the word with a “z,” some with an “s.”
So how do I personally see globalisation? I have the advantage of seeing it
from more than one angle. I can see it as someone from a small country – with
just 2 million people.
But I also see it as a European Commissioner. The Commission represents over
450 million people and speaks for Europe as one, when, for example, it
negotiates in the World Trade Organisation.
For me, globalisation is about playing to your strengths. It is not about the
large wiping out the small, or the cheap replacing the expensive.
This is where the EU puts its values into action. We want balanced rules
allowing maximum competition - but in a fair manner. I think this generally
reflects the American outlook too.
I believe that, just as we have similar outlooks, we both have similar
challenges in science and technology. And we are trying to address them in the
same ways.
What are these challenges?
Well, when it comes to the challenges presented by globalisation, it is
difficult not to mention one word:
Asia.
The rise of Asia, both present and predicted, is amazing. If we look at the
most obvious example, China, we can gauge the pace of its development:
• In education, China increases its annual budget by 30% and will produce more
engineers than either the EU or US this year.
• In R&D intensity, China's growth rate is around 20% year.
• And in business, an increasing numbers of multinationals are setting up R&D
centres in China.
This is just China. Rapid development is taking place in other Asian countries,
in particular India.
Both the US and the EU understand that this is not all about low-cost
manufacturing: there are competitive R&D and innovative activities taking place
in Asia too.
Should we fear this?
In a word, no. It's true that the challenge needs to be taken seriously and
addressed correctly – now. But as long as we do that, I believe that - to quote
your President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. – “The only thing we have to fear is
fear itself.”
Seeing emerging countries following the same development path as Europe and the
US is normal. Indeed, it is something that both the EU and the US have long
encouraged.
But it would be naïve not to mention the size of China's, and other Asian
countries', economies. Development on such a scale can have major knock-on
effects elsewhere in the world.
There is already some evidence of this. For example, some European and US
companies intend to expand their science and technology activities in Asia more
rapidly than in our own countries.
And some analysts have even predicted a limited net loss of science and
technology staff for large multinational companies in Europe and the US.
In the longer term, we will clearly have to get used to China and others
developing into science and technology powers - on a fully equal footing with
Europe and the US. There will be a "multipolar" world in science.
***
But let's deal with the present.
Some recent surveys provide evidence for optimism. The US
"Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable" commissioned a large
survey of US and EU firms. It found that, in the short term, the impact of
these globalisation developments on western R&D should not be overestimated.
In the EU, a European Commission survey found that European companies are
planning to increase their spending on R&D by 5% every year in the next 3
years. And that companies generally still prefer to locate a substantial
proportion of research in their home country.
We should remember that most R&D centres established in China and Asia are
expansions and not relocations of activities from the West.
Companies setting up R&D centres in China often do so in areas important for
China's sustainable development: for example, transport and energy. In this,
both sides can benefit.
These new R&D centres are not usually centres where companies will undertake
their most strategic research. The reason is that effective intellectual
property rights (IPR) protection is vital for strategic research. This is why,
for example, most pharmaceuticals companies are not presently doing R&D in
China.
So we ought to promote focused cooperation with China and other emerging
countries, in areas where benefits for our companies outweigh the IPR risks.
At the same time, of course, we need to encourage emerging countries to ensure
better IPR protection. In the EU, this was a subject I brought up recently with
my Chinese counterpart when we established the
China-EU Science and Technology
Year.
So if EU and US companies often maintain R&D centres in their own countries, we
need to ask one question. Why?
The reason is largely because labour costs are not the sole determining factor.
The single most important factor mentioned by companies for locating R&D in EU
countries is people. Companies want quality R&D personnel.
So that's where our focus should be. Promoting the highest standards in
education and research system and linking this with our companies. In other
words, innovation. From what I hear, Harvard University knows a thing or two
about this…
Innovation is what can help the US and EU tackle problems which are too big for
either of us in isolation.
We need the best brains in the world researching issues such as global warming,
alternative sources of energy and global diseases. We also need pooled
resources.
I am pleased to see that there are already many examples of the EU and the US
working together in this way, especially since the
EU-US Science and Technology
Agreement came into force in October 1998.
We cooperate by sharing expertise, notably in the selection of projects: EU R&D
programmes widely call on US scientists to evaluate research proposals, and
vice versa.
There is also cooperation between the EU Framework Programme and the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation to tackle global diseases, showing the public and the
private from both sides of the Atlantic united.
And when it comes to pooling resources for the common good of everyone, special
mention must be made of the
ITER project. If you haven't heard of this, it is a
major project which hopes to see clean, renewable energy produced through
nuclear fusion – the same physical process that the Sun uses to generate
energy.
I'm pleased that the US, the EU and other major international partners have all
put their support behind this. It is without doubt one of the most important
science projects of this century.
***
I have spoken so far about how we in the EU and the US have so much in common.
But, as you know, we also have our differences…
These include a difference of approach and different challenges in certain
areas. For example, we in the EU remain concerned about the ageing of our
population. Europeans are having fewer babies, and are living longer. Our
populations are getting smaller, with fewer young people.
Here in the US, you just passed the 300 million population mark and are still
going strong. A shrinking or ageing population is not a concern for you.
But perhaps the biggest difference between the EU and the US is that we have a
central problem which you don't: it's called fragmentation.
The US is 50 states with a common language and history. The EU is 25 European
countries (soon to be 27) with at least 20 languages and very different
histories.
More importantly for today's R&D, there are 25 national research policies with
25 national programmes, 25 national infrastructures, and so on. This has led
to:
• duplications of R&D programmes, activities, infrastructures and resources;
• difficulties in reaching critical mass;
• a lack of competition for funding, reduced researcher mobility and limited
incentives for innovation.
This is all changing – largely, I am proud to say, thanks to the role played by
the European Commission. Since 2000, we have been progressively taking on these
issues and improving European science and technology.
In doing so, we want to keep our diversity. Fragmentation is a minus, but
diversity is a plus. For example, having several teams deliberately competing
to solve a problem, experimenting with different methods, can bring solutions
more quickly.
Allow me to briefly run through some of the main initiatives we have, some of
which could benefit you directly:
Firstly, next year sees the beginning of the EU's next Framework Programme on
R&D, dubbed FP7. It has a budget of some 68 billion dollars and will last until
2013. It will address major challenges across the board, with projects open to
research organisations and firms from US and rest of the world. Its priorities
were drawn up in close consultation with industry. Whatever your
specialisation, I think there can be something for you in FP7.
Secondly, we are introducing the
European Research Council. The concept is
simple. Research teams compete for funding which is awarded on just one
criterion: excellence. The structure and the functioning of the European
Research Council have a lot in common with those of the US National Science
Foundation. The ERC will have an annual budget of up to 1.25 billion dollars.
Thirdly, we are working on setting up a
European Institute of Technology. Is
this like your MIT with a European flavour? In short, no. Yes, there are
similarities, in its focus on technology and close relationship with industry.
But in reality, the novelty and added value of EIT comes from its first letter
– “E” for "European."
The EIT will involve "knowledge and innovation communities" made up of closely
integrated staff from universities, research organisations and industry. They
will work together and maintain links with organisations from all over Europe,
gathering "the best of Europe" to work on key technologies for industry. The
EIT should become operational as of 2008 and the first "knowledge and
innovation communities" should be in place as of 2010/2011.
Fourthly, the
European Research Area, which was launched in 2000, has improved
coordination and conditions. Under this, major infrastructure projects are
being reviewed at European level. We are also helping to coordinate some of
those 25 national research programmes in the EU. And perhaps most importantly,
we are looking to improve conditions for researchers' mobility and careers.
We have a new European Charter for Researchers and a Code for conduct for their
recruitment. The idea is to ensure that researchers coming to work in or with
Europe have fair working conditions and can develop their career in several
countries. And we have created easier visa conditions for researchers from the
US who want to come in Europe for short or long stays.
In this respect, I'd like to take this opportunity to let you know that the
European Career Fair, with a dedicated Science and Technology section, will
take place at the MIT in February. This reflects the Commission's ongoing
commitment to:
• maintaining contact with the estimated 100,000 European researchers working
in the US, through ERA-link, the network of European researchers abroad,
• attracting research talent to Europe, and
• promoting the European Research Area.
***
To sum up let me draw some quick comparisons between the US and Europe. There
is an ongoing debate about whether we, in the EU, could do more to help
innovation. But the debate on promoting innovation is not limited to the EU –
the same questions have been asked here too.
This reflects that both sides are wanting to continually improve, always
"raising the bar," as you say.
The reality is on both sides, we have our strengths.
Europe, for example, can boast:
• the world’s largest numbers of science and technology graduates;
• the highest share of scientific publications;
• and, according to a recent study, we also top the league in licensing public
research results and creating spin-offs from universities.
On the other hand, the US can claim:
• very high intensities of science and technology personnel,
• the same in private R&D (notably due to the concentration of high-tech
industries and services),
• numerous high-tech patents
…and, of course, a wealth of Nobel Prizes, including pretty much a clean sweep
this year!
***
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am from Europe. So believe me when I say that I really feel that both the EU
and US sides offer excellence in their own ways. And excellence is what we are
both looking for, whether it is in Cambridge-England, or
Cambridge-Massachusetts.
We are divided by an ocean but united by globalisation's challenges – and
opportunities. If there are two blocs of determined people, capable of
responding, it is the US and the EU. And together, we can do even more.
Earlier, I quoted from your President, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Given that he was
also Harvard graduate, let me also finish today with another part of that same
speech.
He said: “Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money: it lies in the
joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.”
I would like to wish everyone here good luck in all of these.
Thank you.
