Scientific and Research Challenges for Europe within a Globalised World

Speech by Janez Potočnik made at Harvard University on the 26th of October 2006:

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

• 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!

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.”

this guy does not know what he is talking aobut....

muzzies never bring anything to the table but death & destruction....they believe in a 14th century world

eurabia has become a 3rd world muzzie cesspool....in 50 years the cathedral of notre dame will be a mosque...

the US is being invaded and will become another 3rd world nation as it will be run by la raza and mechca....

the article/author states that the common language and thread of the US is english...not so fast...with the lib/dem pc multicultural approach...these invaders are not/will not assimilate....

the balkanization the US has begun and will be complete in 2 generations....these invaders are NOT the best and brightest to infiltrate...

just as castro opened his jails and allowed all criminals to come to the US under the mariolito flotilla....vicente fox and jorge bush along with every lib/dem have open the US to all the illiterate mexican underclass....

it is understandable that hotels need the toilets cleaned and that the agribusiness needs pickers...but this does not support the author's contentions of the US let alone eurabia remaining as the powers that will rule the world!!!!!!

My views on this matter:

The West will continue to lead human culture for centuries on.

Those who think of themselves as better rulers should not prepare to run the "global office".
Sooner, They'd better prepare to get run over.
- By an united Western Civilization in close cooperation with Japan, India, China and other Asian countries who belive in the same things we do:

Human Progress.

Sorry mr. taliban, you've played yourself.

I get your point of view.

But listen to what this guy is actually saying:

"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."

In my opinion, it is a downright shame that the two most powerful forces on Earth constantly is attacking each other with all sorts of senseless accusations.

Do you honestly think we Europeans will allow Saudi Arabia to take over our continent?

In that case, you're brainwashed.

Even if we WANTED to happen, it could not be done.

The EU is seeking to limit the immigration of desperate economical/political refugees from the muslim world and believe me, we've got the economic resources to do whatever we want in the field of international affairs.

Let's forward our cause like responsible carriers of culture.

The US and the EU ought to unite.

This is my belief.

"Europe had a chance to beat the US for the Human Genome. So did the US government. Neither could compete with the private enterprise model. It works."

Good point!

Anyhow, these words need to be repeated;

"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."

Mr. Janez Potoènik, European Commissioner for Science and Research

- There's a good guy.

Companies setting up R&D centres in China often do so in areas important for China's sustainable development:

I don't trust anyone who uses the term "sustainable development". It just says I'm a socialist do-gooder, and socialist do-gooders have little respect for property rights. Maybe I am wrong about this, but it is my gut instinct.

"it is understandable that hotels need the toilets cleaned and that the agribusiness needs pickers...but this does not support the author's contentions of the US let alone eurabia remaining as the powers that will rule the world!!!!!!"

That's why we're fighting a war against terrorism.

In the context of the speech, your post makes no sense.

"I don't trust anyone who uses the term "sustainable development". It just says I'm a socialist do-gooder, and socialist do-gooders have little respect for property rights. Maybe I am wrong about this, but it is my gut instinct."

Well, there are good people who use this expression in order to manipulate their PC audience.

The World has never been a 100% clean place from a clinical point of view.

I welcome a little use of Machiavellism and other sorts of trickery to safeguard Western Civilization.

This man is on our side.

i understand your concern...but actions do speak louder than words....vis a vis spain after the train attacks...
if symptomatic of future events....you tell me aobut the europeans standing up to the invading hordes....that is unless you can find a non- pc charles martel looming amoung the liberals!!!

of course it does....as long as the lib/dems allow this invasion to be continued and advacned in the name of cheap labor ...it is only time before the US will sink to the level of its parasitic invaders!

Enemies of western culture are massing at our southern borders and from within especially in Europe. This is not a time to be concerned about scientific research and development cooperation.

Saudi Arabia is not a threat - they are a Western ally.

Iran is the problem. Al Qaeda is. Shiite militants are. They are massing to attack the Saudi Kingdom and seek to dominate the entire mideast except Israel who will defend themselves.

From there, they will put Rome and major European cities in the crosshairs make no mistake. It is time for cooperative defense - not research.

I sincerely don't think I am brainwashed.....every pc concession to the muzzies the europeans have made is another coffin nail in european survival!

the one thing that the muzzies have is time....as the european birthrate declines and the muzzie grows in a geometric not arithmetic proportion....soon who will be in the mahority and minority.....sharia law have begun to make in-roads and in time.....yes...if you really believe that status quo will continue...you are the one that needs to re-examine you exploration of the world!!!!!!

"I sincerely don't think I am brainwashed.....every pc concession to the muzzies the europeans have made is another coffin nail in european survival!

the one thing that the muzzies have is time....as the european birthrate declines and the muzzie grows in a geometric not arithmetic proportion....soon who will be in the mahority and minority.....sharia law have begun to make in-roads and in time.....yes...if you really believe that status quo will continue...you are the one that needs to re-examine you exploration of the world!!!!!!"

Clown.

it is apparent you are either a muzzie/muzzie lover/or a pc lib/dem that welcomes the onslaught invasion and conversion of europe to eurabia.....

good luck with your peaceful demonstrations in paris....with all those "youths!!!"......

in time....you will need either a towel or a burhka...either way....that will be your lot in life....

and you call me a clown!!!!!!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.