The future of European science is changing
Facilitating cross-border collaboration, investment in the next generation of researchers and developing leading scientific facilities is crucial to establishing Europe as the principal research neighbourhood and making the continent an attractive science base for both European and international scientists alike.
The closure of EUROHORCs, the winding down of the European Science Foundation and subsequent creation of Science Europe, is a key development to helping create a single European Research Area (ERA) and will help make it easier for scientists to collaborate with their counterparts across the EU’s 27 member states.
Pär Omling is the president of the European Science Foundation (ESF) and is one of the two vice presidents of Science Europe. Speaking to Horizon2020projects, he provided his thoughts on how Horizon 2020 will help develop scientific co-operation in the EU.
With the winding down of ESF and the development of Science Europe, what key changes will the scientific community witness?
Originally, we had two organisations – EUROHORCs, composed of the heads of the national research funding and research performing organisations, and the European Science Foundation, a broader organisation with a more organic structure. A lot of the power was in the hands of EUROHORCs, with operations mainly lying within the ESF. Yet this structure was very confusing for researchers in Europe, as well as in other parts of the world.
After a long debate, we decided to essentially closedown EUROHORCs, wind down the ESF and create a new organisation – Science Europe. This simplification is very important for researchers and policy makers in Europe and we hope this will lead to a more powerful science structure in the continent. European policy makers advised that Science Europe should be based on scientific input and we have therefore a scientific committee structure which includes top-level researchers; an important signal to the European community. Another result of the restructuring is better co-ordination between different stakeholders, including the European Commission and universities in Europe.
Compared to FP7, how can Horizon 2020 further develop the EU as an attractive place for new, innovative research?
When we consider FP7 and Horizon 2020, both were constructed during different eras. FP7 was created when we were, for example, struggling with the development of the European Research Council (ERC), whilst Horizon 2020 has been constructed when the ERC has become more established, and now the focus is on developing the ERA.
We must remember that there have been many recent scientific investments to increase human knowledge, to increase European quality of life, to create wealth, and to increase the knowledge of Man. With this perspective, we also have to remember that Horizon 2020, according to the Commission, is the political tool for creating new jobs. But if it was simply that, I think Horizon 2020 would not be very interesting. Yet the beauty of Horizon 2020 is its composition and focus on tackling global challenges and helping to build a strong research community and society. I think Horizon 2020 has a nice balance between the three pillars as well as introducing simplifications compared to FP7. The inclusion of social sciences and humanities is also a good step forward.
Every country has its own research and innovation ecosystem, but this then leads to a problem of cross-border connectivity in Europe. The idea is that a European scientist should not feel he is working in a silo – he or she should be able to collaborate with other researchers in Europe and simply apply to his national funding agency for that collaboration. Such possibilities to collaboration often lead to higher scientific quality. When it comes to innovation, I think we have to see Europe as an innovation arena, as opposed to more restricted national systems (which are however flourishing in Europe). Creating a European innovation platform is very attractive and very important; this is one goal when establishing an open ERA.
Horizon 2020 is just a small part of total investment in R&D in Europe. We should never forget that a large part of funding is in the university system and within Science Europe. What is important is that Horizon 2020 complements these national and institutional efforts, whilst acting as a catalyst for further funding.
How can Europe stay an attractive region for new, young scientists?
The development of the ERA is crucial – it’s vital that Europe is an attractive region for researchers and particularly for young researchers as this is where the future lies. For young people who would like to make a career as a researcher in Europe, we must be able to show all the resources, facilities and possibilities that Europe can offer and how easy it is to make a career in this exciting research landscape. This is a major refocus of how things are being done and I think Horizon 2020 is a key building block in this process.
The inclusion of the Marie Curie Actions is also very important. We cannot afford to fail in attracting young researchers into the European research system – that would otherwise be disastrous. The ERC has put a lot of money into Starting Grants for young people at the beginning of their career too, and I think this continuation is a very important part of Horizon 2020.
What role will Horizon 2020 play in the development of Europe’s research infrastructures?
It’s quite clear that the Commission has realised the importance of research infrastructures as a key part of making Europe an attractive research base. The Commission has already established a legal model to create pan-European infrastructures, for example the ERIC-model. The ESF is also currently in charge of the MERIL (Mapping of the European Research Infrastructure Landscape) programme, which was initially funded by the Commission.
A stronger interaction between Horizon 2020 and the structural funds is also important. We are very worried in Europe about regional brain drain – what we want is a brain migration and gain, and we can use these structural funds in order to build up competency in these regions; from a political point of view, this is a key tool.
We cannot afford to fail when it comes to making Europe an attractive research base, both for our new, young researchers, but also for those outside of Europe. That is our key challenge.
Pär Omling