As such, Research Media Ltd will be providing coverage of the events in its flagship International Innovation publication, detailing the key issues, objectives and outcomes, as well as featuring interviews with prominent members of the ESF. Furthermore, complimentary copies of International Innovation will be available at the events.

International Innovation is a unique publication dedicated to the dissemination of the latest science, research and technology. It offers a bespoke service to researchers and leading scientific institutions who wish to highlight and share their latest work with those in the global research community, producing tailored articles and interviews to suit the needs of its clients.

Nick Brake, Director of Research Media Ltd, is enormously excited by the prospect of being an official media partner of all 2012 ESF events: “We are thrilled to announce our collaboration with the ESF at their upcoming events. The visibility that this will afford to the projects that we disseminate cannot be underestimated and we hope that our presence at the events will attract a wealth of new readers”.

The ESF is an independent, non-governmental organisation dedicated to pan-European scientific networking and collaboration and has played an essential role in mediating a multitude of heterogeneous research cultures and agencies. With a total budget of €61 million in 2010 and a projected economic impact in excess of €1 billion, it is a major driving force for advanced research in Europe.

To guarantee your FREE subscription to International Innovation and to ensure that you stay up to date with the latest ESF events, outcomes and interviews, please visit our dedicated subscriptions page at www.research-europe.com/subscribe.php.

Furthermore, for an overview of the ESF’s 2012 events, please see http://www.esf.org/activities/esf-conferences/2012-upcoming-events.html?year=2012.

The programme sessions will offer a forum to present and debate on the current state of gender equality within research and science organisations. Research Media Ltd Director Nick Brake expresses his delight to play a key role in the Summit: “Research Media Ltd is pleased to promote the first ever European Gender Summit by serving as official media partner. As one of the leading scientific dissemination services in Europe, we look forward to spreading awareness of the importance of including all individuals in the pursuit of more comprehensive research and innovation”.

Participants will have the opportunity to learn about the latest research on gender and innovation, learn how to implement solutions to gender-related issues within their work environment, and contribute their project to be included in a reference base to be showcased at the stakeholder exhibition. The discussions will culminate in a manifesto on policy development on gender for innovation called “Integrated Action on the Gender Dimension in Research.”

The European Gender Summit is supported by the European Commission through the Science and Society Programme (FP7). Key speakers include Director of the Joint Research Council and the Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, Dr Elke Anklam, and Chief Editor of the peer-reviewed journal PLos, Dr Virginia Barbour

Commissioner for Research, Innovation & Science Máire Geoghegan-Quinn encourages the Summit’s dedication to gender equality saying: “Specific measures are needed to support women’s scientific careers, and to address gender factors in the research process, with a view to improving quality. The European Gender Summit will show how these issues can be tackled more effectively through collaboration between scientists, gender research scholars and policy makers”.

www.gender-summit.eu/

Research Media are pleased to announce that they will be an official partner for this year’s event, where we will be distributing free copies of International Innovation – our publication dedicated to the dissemination of the latest science, research and technology.

Simon Jones, Director of Research Media states: “We at Research Media are thrilled to be an official partner of the European Innovation Summit 2011. Research clusters consisting of industry, SMEs and academia are essential for research, development and innovation, and we hope that the event will serve to highlight the most pressing and pertinent issues”.

This year’s event will be held from the 10-13 October, and will be split into two distinct parts: a summit in Brussels, for which President Jerzy Buzek has granted the patronage of the European Parliament, and a Ministerial Conference in Warsaw.

Organised by Knowledge4Innovation (K4I), a non-profit, independent multi-stakeholder platform with members from the European public, private and academic sectors, the event will adhere to the motto ‘Towards a European Innovation Ecosystem’. In Warsaw, the summit will focus on both adapting EU research and innovation policies in national and regional contexts, and increasing synergy between different policy areas. Furthermore, the Brussels-based activities will enable participants to examine the role of individuals –  and young talent in particular – in fostering innovation and addressing the challenges presented by funding.

In the past two years the event has proved to be a lynchpin in debates on the function, pitfalls and importance of supporting innovations, attracting some 2,000 innovation stakeholders and over 200 speakers, including the presidents of the European Parliament and the European Commission.

This year’s event promises to be just as engaging, with the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek; European Commissioner for Innovation, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn; and the U.S. Ambassador to the EU, William Kennard, already confirmed as but a few of the high profile speakers at this year’s summit.

With hot debate surrounding future European policy and budgets for European innovation initiatives, this event affords a timely and open forum to discuss the most pertinent issues for all involved.

For further information, see the official website: www.knowledge4innovation.eu/EIS/SitePages/eis2011_home.aspx

What is your vision regarding the development of regional policy across the EU?

The debate on the future of European regional policy after the current funding period ends in 2013 is well underway. In the context of both the Europe 2020 Strategy – which sets out the sustainable economic development blueprint for the Union for the next decade – and the EU budget review, 2011 is in many ways a pivotal year for laying down the foundations for the future policy.

We are working hard on preparing a regional policy which is relevant and appropriate for the economic situation of today. The financial crisis has underlined the need for a strong development policy, supporting processes of structural adjustment across Europe and addressing key bottlenecks to growth. It has also shown that we need a policy that continues to invest in the competitiveness of all regions, as well as supporting development in those lagging behind.

However, to achieve this, and to increase the effectiveness of policy in the future, we must simplify the rules. Future funding should also be focused on a limited number of priorities, in line with the goals set by Europe 2020 Strategy. We need to explore new financing models to pool resources between the public and private sectors to maximise the impact of the policy. And we need to focus more on results. Evaluating the impact of this investment, learning what works and why it works, is critical to its success. Letting the public know what has actually been achieved with their taxpayers’ money is also a cornerstone of democratic accountability.

Can you summarise what ‘regional policy’ entails, and highlight issues which must be addressed in today’s European climate? Can you offer an insight into your strategies for addressing economic disparities in Europe?

Regional policy is the expression of the EU’s solidarity with its less-favoured regions and countries. It works through integrated programmes to support the sustainable development of the regions and the EU as a whole. More specifically, it works to bring out the best in every region, make all regions competitive, and create more and better jobs.

Of the EU’s 271 regions, one in four has a GDP of less than 75 per cent of the EU average. There are diverse reasons for this inequality, with many of the poorest regions suffering from longstanding hindrances such as geographical remoteness or the legacy of centrally planned economies. However, allowing these differences to continue unchecked could damage the EU’s overall dynamism and competitiveness. The EU is committed to ensuring that this doesn’t happen – which is why such a significant amount of the EU’s overall budget (around one third) is invested through regional policy.

Between 2007 and 2013, regional policy is worth 347 billion euros. It is not just about transferring wealth from well-off regions to poorer ones. The money is targeted towards economic growth and the creation of jobs, for example, by improving transport links to remote regions, boosting SMEs in disadvantaged areas, investing in a cleaner environment and improving education and skills.

What is the significance in developing tailored policies for distinct regions of the EU?

The regional diversity of the EU, in which regions have vastly different characteristics, opportunities and needs, requires us to go beyond one-size-fits-all policies. This is why we have developed an approach that gives regions the ability to design – and the means to deliver – policies that meet their needs. This is what regional policy provides through its place-based approach.

Consequently, European regional policy – that is, its instruments and programmes – are largely managed in a decentralised way by the national and regional governments concerned. Within a common framework set by the EU, Member States and regions select priority areas for European investments. Each programme is developed in a collective process involving authorities at European, national, regional and local levels, as well as social partners. This ensures that each partner has ownership of the programmes and that they are best adapted to the needs of each region.

Why might it be suggested that European regional policy is – or ought to be – at the heart of the EU’s efforts for economic recovery and long term prosperity under the EU 2020 Strategy?

As the European community’s largest source of investment in the real economy, the EU’s regional policy provides stable investment at local and regional levels. In this economic climate, the importance of this investment is clearer than ever, providing robust support for budgetary stability and public investment in the regions. Regional policy is at the heart of the EU’s efforts for exiting the crisis. The policy made a significant contribution to the European Economic Recovery Plan. A series of measures have been taken to help simplify and speed up project implementation, and accelerate structural fund payments.

I am also convinced that we must ensure that the future regional policy is closely aligned with the Europe 2020 Strategy. The Europe 2020 headline targets cannot be achieved by policies formulated at EU or national level alone. Such an ambitious agenda can only succeed with strong national and regional participation and ownership on the ground. And regional policy has a vital role to play in providing incentives to foster adjustment to smart, inclusive and sustainable growth. It can ensure that community action is translated into real development on the ground, mobilising a wide range of regional and local stakeholders.

What would you highlight as the most pressing challenges facing policy makers in the development of regional policy, and how is the Department addressing them?

The main challenge facing European regional policy is that despite recent trends towards convergence (our recent evaluation reports show how investment from the policy has had a clear impact to help reduce economic, social and environmental disparities), significant differences between European regions remain. These are not just measured in terms of levels of economic development. More developed regions are also more competitive – that is, more innovative, with a more skilled workforce and higher levels of employment, and better endowed with infrastructure and a higher quality of government.

The challenge facing European regional policy today is to find the right policy to be able to address these challenges. Drawing on lessons learnt from the current and previous programming periods, as well as discussions with a broad range of stakeholders, the fifth cohesion report will make a series of proposals for reforming the policy. The focus here will be on making the policy more effective and more results-driven to achieve a greater EU, value-added in line with the priorities of the Europe 2020 growth goals. We also need to strengthen the governance of the policy and involvement of partners, as well as simplify its delivery system.

Sceptics might suggest that so-called ‘red tape’ – that is, extensive legislation and regulation – hinders socioeconomic development at regional levels. How might you address such claims?

I am aware that regional policy tends to be perceived as difficult and complex to manage. I would like to make two points here. Firstly, rules are in place for good reason. Complex projects involving a lot of money have to respect many rules (eg. Environmental assessments, state aid rules, public procurement rules, documentation standards, etc.). The checks and balances are inplace to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent properly and correctly.

However, I do recognise that there is always scope for improvement. This is why we are always striving to strike the right balance between getting value for money, without imposing a regulatory burden that turns people off. We have actively been looking at ways to simplify delivery over recent years, a process given increasing urgency with the crisis. We adopted a number of initiatives aimed at simplifying management rules which should help to facilitate access to the funds and accelerate flows of investment at a time when public budgets are under pressure. In the fifth cohesion report, we will also examine a number of ideas for further simplifying and streamlining the delivery system.

To what extent does the Department facilitate interaction and dialogue with stakeholders, industrial leaders, national governmental bodies and SMEs in identifying key concerns and developing workable solutions to these issues? How significant is collaboration in this regard?

The Directorate-General for Regional Policy attaches much importance to the interaction with stakeholders and beneficiaries of regional policy. We have developed a highly constructive, ongoing dialogue with stakeholders looking at key concerns and developing workable solutions to issues around the implementation of the policy.

For example, we organise regular meetings examining ways in which we can simplify the implementation of the funds and reduce the administrative burden. We held a meeting in June 2010 on ‘Streamlining the implementation mechanism of the Structural Funds’, to which we invited representatives of beneficiaries of the funds from the following sectors and authorities: SMEs and businesses; local authorities and public institutions; and research institutions as recipients of funds.

This is just one example – other informal dialogues have been established with civil society organisations, socioeconomic partners, and management and audit authorities, amongst others. This partnership aspect is an area which we are keen to strengthen even further in the future reformed policy, post-2013.

In what ways are you working to develop and stimulate innovation and growth in areas which have emerging knowledge economies?

Under the regional structural funds, 86 billion euros – a quarter of the total budget – is targeted for research and innovation between 2007 and 2013. However, innovation performance and take-up of funds varies considerably across the EU-27 Member States. The Commission has recently brought forward a new Communication: ‘Regional Policy contributing to smart growth in Europe 2020’, which sets out a raft of policy recommendations to tackle regional disparities and encourage higher levels of investment in innovation in the regions. Tabled on 6 October 2010 alongside the flagship EU ‘Innovation Union’, it calls for more effective use of EU regional funds to help boost innovation and meet the Europe 2020 goals on smart growth.

National and regional authorities are asked to design ‘smart specialisation strategies’ in cooperation with business, universities and research centres. These will help regions identify their best assets, focus on key priorities, increase cooperation with other regions, and identify bottlenecks to innovation. The aim is to concentrate resources on a limited number of priorities which are proven areas of comparative advantage, for instance, on clusters, existing sectors and cross-sectoral activities, eco-innovation, high value-added markets, or specific research areas.

To assist the regions in identifying their strengths and opportunities, the Commission will develop a ‘Smart Specialisation Platform’, bringing together expertise from universities, research centres, regional authorities and businesses.

Can you offer some tangible examples of the work which the department has facilitated or mobilised? What would you identify as its key achievements in recent years?

Evaluation reports published in April 2010 give a clear indication of the achievements of the policy. Regional policy has had a major impact on the European economy in recent years, reducing the economic gaps between different parts of the Union and promoting environmental and social development. It provides investment for modernisation, is a catalyst for change in all European regions and brings new business opportunities. We estimate that between 2000 and 2006, it helped to create 1.4 million new jobs, supported small firms and boosted research. It has offered valuable training opportunities to millions of women, young people, the vulnerable in society and the unemployed. It has modernised transport links, supporting the construction or improvement of thousands of kilometres of road and rail and the modernisation of ports and airports. It has also improved environmental conditions for millions of Europeans bringing the quality of drinking water and treatment of waste water up to EU standards.

In sum, the regional policy investment that Europe channels through the structural funds has made a huge difference to the lives of millions of citizens across the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy

Could you explain the mission of Chalmers University of Technology? 

Through internationally acclaimed education and research combined with a professional innovation process, Chalmers’ mission is to become one of the most attractive universities of technology. With this mission, we take on a responsibility to integrate education, research and innovation within the university as well as with external collaborators. Our mission encompasses a duty to contribute to the needs of society: today, tomorrow and beyond our lifetimes. Driven by sustainability, entrepreneurship and innovation, Chalmers is an eternal source of inspiration and motivation for the development of its research, education and collaboration. The open and forward-looking culture of Chalmers was established two centuries ago by our founder, William Chalmers. With the motto Avancez, this second-generation Swede and global businessman gave our university an international frame and natural integration with the competitive edge of society, while understanding the role for competence and knowledge to bring wealth. This culture has endured, becoming an essential part of the development of Chalmers over the years, and is an important ingredient in enabling Chalmers to be prepared to actively take on the responsibility of developing the role of the 21st Century university.

Unlike most universities in Sweden, Chalmers is owned by a foundation. Can you shed light on the significance of the university’s somewhat novel setup? What benefits does it yield?

We should be able to measure success through our attractiveness in the eyes of students and researchers, and the way collaborators from academia, and both the private and public sectors, select us as a preferred partner. The open attitude you find at Chalmers has allowed incentives for cross-border activities to be welcomed. The autonomy given to Chalmers in 1994 (a university company owned by a foundation with selected agreements to the state university system) provided freedom to adopt a novel role in the running of the university. With this freedom our support system of innovation has been successful in numbers and rich in opportunities, although it has been a struggle to provide coordination and critical mass. This is an area of highest concern for the near future; the recently awarded innovation office (one of six in the country) is our key to professionalise this coordination. The autonomy has opened a number of opportunities for Chalmers. A risk is that Chalmers’ degrees of freedom are looked upon as disturbing exceptions rather than unique opportunities for the national and European university landscape. The freedom to develop new career and human resource infrastructure is one example where Chalmers is determined to develop best practice.

To what extent does Chalmers interact with industry and society, both locally and on a global scale?

Our strong belief is that research results and new knowledge shall come to good use. We want to leave a permanent impression in society and make sure that academic and public stakeholders take responsibility in knowledge clusters where we are present in the world. We believe that creativity in education, research and innovation are empowered by openness. Open innovation models are also increasingly acquired within industry, based on a growing awareness that most of the ideas and knowledge for long term competitiveness are to be found outside the own company. Chalmers is actively offering improved practice of effective networks, collaborations and co-competition with the right partners, and the ability to work towards common goals. As one example, a model of strategic collaboration between Chalmers and multinational companies has gained added value. The strategic umbrella level in this model makes all existing collaborative projects visible, enabling competence building, long-term and strategic development dialogue, collaborations around demonstrators, and novel, sustainable added values.

In what way is Chalmers pursuing innovation and serving as a hotbed of activity to develop the solutions of tomorrow?

Future innovations will most certainly be increasingly based on systematic approaches of best technology, customer trends and needs, resource and recycling awareness, as well as IT possibilities and security. The competitiveness will most certainly be reflected by the ability for companies to understand these systematic issues.

Many research environments at Chalmers have a very strong track record of producing spinoff companies and fruitful collaborations to the benefit of private and public clients around the world. A circulating innovation process is also commonly applied where ideas are based on industrial and scientific needs. Concepts are rapidly tested by industry, and feedback stimulates creative innovations. Our innovation system is supported by a number of companies focusing on a shift to a knowledge-based economy. Together, we offer and develop competencies, networks, professional services, research contacts, and new business models combined with rapid development cycles, enabling companies to collaborate with other companies, universities and research institutes.

In education, the entrepreneurial-driven students can build real companies during a Master’s programme by open innovation schemes encompassing hot technology-based ideas with professional support on the path to commercialisation. This Master’s programme has an unmatched track record of supporting and educating more than 200 entrepreneurs in building over 27 companies, making us the most renowned school of entrepreneurship in Europe. The challenges are of course manifold in making a university innovation system sustainable. The main goal for Chalmers is to provide the best opportunities for students and scientists to have an impact on a sustainable future.

How would you rate Chalmers’ capacities at the international level?

Most departments at Chalmers have internationally recognised scientists. In addition to recognition within disciplines, an increasing number of scientists also engage in challenges requiring collaborative efforts. One recent example is the successful coordinating action on graphene. This is coordinated by Chalmers, and has been selected as one of six EU ‘Future Emerging Technology Flagship Pilots’ in competition for a 10- year, 1,000 million euro FET flagship. This is an ambitious, large-scale, visionary research initiative, aiming at a breakthrough for technological innovation and economic exploitation based on graphene and related two-dimensional materials. The graphene flagship aims to bring together a large, focused, interdisciplinary European research community, acting as a sustainable incubator of new branches of ICT applications, ensuring that European industries will have a major role in this radical technology shift over the next 10 years. An effective transfer of knowledge and technology to industries will enable product development and production. The graphene flagship already includes over 130 research groups, representing 80 academic and industrial partners in 21 European countries. The coordination action is led by a consortium of nine partners who are pioneers of graphene research, innovation, and networking activities around the world.

Sweden is experiencing a downtrend in the number of students pursuing science subjects in higher education. How is Chalmers working to address this issue?

Chalmers’ education maintains focus on the development of the individual through personal guidance, problem-solving, involvement in international efforts, contact with business and research, sustainable development, and reality-based leadership. Our attractive offer will be even more important in time, as the relatively low interest to study at a technical university will not increase unless we take action. At Chalmers, we therefore have a diverse strategy of both internal and external efforts. For example, present students are helping with after-school study in suburban high schools and at our campus on weekends. Strategies for collaboration with city-based high schools have been developed and we are starting to educate high school teachers in our core disciplines. Through the City Science Centre we reach younger children both at the Centre and in schools. In addition, we also work in a strategic way to make our courses and programmes as engaging and useful as possible, through a reality-based approach, an inspirational environment and close interaction between research, industry and innovation. At various levels, students, colleagues and alumni are involved in the task of securing the openness, trust and creativity synonymous with Chalmers. Creating and enriching an attractive common culture for students, colleagues and alumni is an ongoing process.

Looking ahead, where would you like to see Chalmers in the future?

My feeling is that Chalmers has the potential to become a 21st Century university defined by its ability to provide excellence in education and research, while attracting students, researchers and collaborators from all over the world, and providing a positive growth environment for the knowledge clusters in which we participate. We have a strong alumni community and a growing enthusiasm internally for collaborative efforts. For Chalmers, this is of utmost importance since we are a private company that seeks to be an active player in building a sustainable tomorrow. I believe we will!

www.chalmers.se

Innovation has been a mainstay of the UK and Europe’s identity. With current global economic constraints in mind, how will you encourage innovative research during your term in office? Is it not seen as a risk to push the boundaries of science with so few resources available?

The biggest risk would be not to push the boundaries of science. We need science for society and our economy to progress – innovative research is a pre-requisite for moving from crisis to sustainable growth. I want to re-focus EU research policy on five ‘grand challenges’: climate change, energy, food security, health and our ageing population.

I see the need to simplify procedures so that we maximise the value for each euro spent. I also want to bring in more SMEs, and complete the European Research Area so that more researchers stay in and come to Europe.

Could you outline your Agenda for 2020? What are the most important aspects of this proposal and how will it differ from the current research strategy?

Research and Innovation have a crucial role in the EU’s overall Europe 2020 Strategy. They are right at the top of the political agenda, perhaps for the first time ever, creating an unprecedented opportunity. Working with colleagues, I will submit the EU’s first ever Research and Innovation Plan in September and it will be debated by EU leaders at the October EU summit. Before that an expert group reporting directly to me will start work on developing a comprehensive set of indicators to benchmark progress on research and innovation. The Commission is proposing to keep the target of three per cent of EU GDP to be invested in R&D, complemented by agreed national targets. We also intend for it to be much more robustly monitored, so that where progress is too slow, effective action can be taken.

When outlining your mandate you stated that you wanted to use your term to put Europe firmly on the path to a sustainable and successful future. What needs to be done to achieve this and is a sustainable Europe even an achievable prospect?

I think it is the duty of politicians to be optimistic – and though the challenges are huge, there is much to be optimistic about. Europe has gone through a terrible economic crisis and it is not over, but the right action was taken to tackle it. Europe has led the world in the effort to beat climate change and promote sustainable energy and although Copenhagen was disappointing I am confident there will be more progress. Of course, the research side is absolutely crucial in this – in particular areas like second generation biofuels, electric cars and clean skies. Furthermore the green and the economic agenda are a perfect fit – it is precisely by taking a world lead in green technologies that we can give our competitiveness a badly needed boost.

How do you propose to strengthen and build upon the current European Research Area? Which aspects of the ERA require a significant investment or change of ethos?

To transform research into genuine innovation and to strengthen the whole chain from research to retail, a close working relationship with other Commissioners, with Member States, with research institutions and with business will be necessary. At EU level we need patent reform. We also need to make better use of EU regional funding to support research and innovation and to make sure we are using every instrument we have to encourage private sector investment. This is where the funding gap lies – we have already almost achieved the one per cent of GDP target for public investment, but it is the two per cent private contribution which lags behind.

International and interdisciplinary collaboration is an essential part of 21st Century scientific research. How do you propose to encourage beneficial relationships and what is your stance on data and knowledge sharing between EU and non-EU nations? Would you like to see an increase in human and technological exchange between countries in the EU and their neighbours?

One of the distinguishing characteristics of the globalised age is the increase not only in competition but also in collaboration. Researchers circulate with others from all over the world. No one country or region can tackle climate change alone and no one country can invest enough alone in developing areas like nuclear fusion – that is why for example we have the ITER project involving partners from across the globe. The EU’s Research Framework Programme already has a very strong international element. The U.S. is the non-EU country most represented in the projects we support. But, yes, I would like to develop our international networks even further. In particular I think we can do more to help developing countries – for example, we’ve just published some proposals on global health which include a strong research element.

Could you elaborate on the ‘Fifth Freedom’ concept? How will you ease its transition from proposition to reality?

The fifth freedom means the free circulation of knowledge, and of the people who create that knowledge, within Europe – and ultimately beyond. That requires world class research infrastructures, including new generations of electronic communication infrastructures. It requires excellent research institutions, engaged in effective public-private cooperation and partnerships.

Of course, this concept has been on the table for several years and a lot of progress has been made. Just to give a couple of examples, the previous Commission set up the European Research Council and the European Institute of Technology.

One key priority we need to progress with is achieving an adequate flow of competent researchers, with high levels of mobility between institutions, disciplines, sectors and countries. I have already had the opportunity to explain to a meeting of EU Employment Ministers what needs to be done to get rid of social security and pension obstacles, and I think we will achieve movement on that over the next couple of years.

The current FP7 funding initiative expires in 2013; how will FP8 differ from its predecessor and how much progress has been made on this?

Just as for previous Framework Programmes, there will be extensive consultation with stakeholders before the Commission brings forward its proposal to the Parliament and Council in late 2011 or early 2012. This consultation is likely to begin in early 2011. So it’s too early to say in detail how it will differ from FP7, though we do know two things already. Firstly, we need to focus on those grand challenges I mentioned previously, and secondly we want to simplify funding procedures already for the remainder of FP7 and then build on that in FP8.

Important lessons for future research funding will also be drawn from the interim-evaluation of FP7, expected for October 2010. This evaluation is being carried out by an independent expert group and aims at a comprehensive analysis of the FP7’s rationale, design, implementation and impact.

Can the EU do more to offer support to scientists? Are there enough opportunities for post-graduates to gain experience in their chosen field?

I think there can never be enough opportunities! And support for scientists is about much more than just money – although obviously in a perfect world we would have much more of that, too! We need to get more young people and more women into science. At the risk of using a cliché, we need to make science sexier, and better communicate the benefits it brings to us all and the interesting professional opportunities it offers. We are talking about a cultural change.

Many international efforts, such as the recent Climate talks in Copenhagen, have failed due to differing political agendas. How will you avoid this conflict of interest and promote a unified research strategy?

I agree that Copenhagen was disappointing – from the Commission’s point of view, President Barroso made that very clear. I don’t think there is a conflict of interest, though – if there is one thing that is in the interest of everyone worldwide, it is tackling climate change! The problem is one of vision – I think Europe has that vision but not everyone else shares it.

As far as research and innovation are concerned, there is definitely a shared vision within and beyond Europe – everyone agrees that only more investment in these areas can turn our economies round in a sustainable way. Of course, we will need to negotiate on priorities and on detail, but I think we have an unprecedented opportunity.

Are there any areas of European innovation that particularly excite you? For example, can Europe adopt a position at the forefront of renewable and alternative energies in the battle against climate change?

Yes, I think Europe is very well placed to lead on renewables – for example, in recent weeks I have visited both Solucar, a solar power platform near Seville in Spain, and the Marine Institute near my own home city of Galway in Ireland. Solucar has received well over €50 million in EU research funding through the Risk-Sharing Finance facility and through project funding. The Marine Institute is coordinating Irish involvement in 43 FP7 marine research projects worth €18 million to Irish researchers and €182 million overall.

In those places, I have seen cutting edge research and innovation in renewable and alternative energies and I know they are only two examples among many. Europe has plenty of wind, waves and sun and we have plenty of scope to produce second generation bio-fuels that do not compete with food production. Above all, we have a wealth of talented and highly motivated scientists and innovators in those areas. But I am equally enthusiastic about Europe’s research on new medicines, on green transport and on nanotechnology, just to name a few areas.

How do you foresee the challenges of European innovation and research evolving during your term? Will global circumstances such as the economic collapse and climate change require a highly adaptive and flexible approach?

I have said already that the economic crisis has been both a threat and an opportunity for our research agenda. It is crucial that governments and businesses keep up and even increase investment in research and innovation, because this is the type of investment that creates most growth and jobs in the medium-term.

I sincerely hope that the challenge evolves from moving out of crisis to consolidating full and sustainable recovery. But that depends on making the right political choices and on implementing the Europe 2020 Strategy.

Certainly adaptability and flexibility will be essential. At EU level, we have already launched innovative public private partnerships, for example on clean skies and innovative medicines, and we want to launch more. We are also complementing the Research Framework Programme by working with Member States on Joint Programming, to improve the efficiency of the way national research funding is used and to avoid duplication.

© European Union, 2010

Jordi Curell, Director of Lifelong learning: higher education and international affairs, responsible for the Marie Curie Actions in DG Education and Culture, offers an illuminating account of the roles their various programmes play in attracting the brightest talents from across the research arena, and highlights the ways in which the different Actions offer personal and professional support to young researchers

Could you explain the motivating factors behind Marie Curie Actions? How would you describe its mission?

The Marie Curie Actions (MCAs) were created more than a decade ago as a series of programmes for the transnational mobility of researchers, and have evolved into actions aimed at structuring and strengthening human resources activities in Europe. This is achieved through attracting, training and retaining high ability researchers and exposing them to interdisciplinarity, inter-sectorial (public-private) experiences, and innovative science in an international and inter-cultural environment.

The MCAs also prepare researchers for the specific needs of creativity and innovation by insisting on the acquisition of transversal and transferable skills such as entrepreneurship, management of intellectual property rights, patenting, project management, languages, proposal writing and communication. Further, the mobility of researchers encourages the creation of centres of excellence around the EU which are able to attract researchers internationally. The schemes are designed to overcome the obstacles to mobility via, for instance, additional mobility and family allowances. The MCAs are characterised by their bottom-up approach, allowing the research community the possibility to apply to the various schemes, regardless of the topic.

Through the emphasis put on the training quality and the attractiveness of the researchers’ careers, the Marie Curie Actions contribute to achieving the ambitious goals that Europe has set itself in the area of Research & Innovation.

Could you highlight the difference between your host- and individual-driven actions, and give a brief overview of the range of actions you offer?

The key difference is that in an individual fellowship, a single researcher applies, with their own project, at a host institution of his/her choice. The researcher’s choice will normally be towards institutions (or companies) that have a high reputation in a particular scientific domain, so that he/she can employ their skills in the best possible context. These actions are open to the best researchers, regardless of whether they are from Europe. We can also send researchers to top institutions outside of Europe to learn and then bring that knowledge back into Europe.

In contrast, host-driven actions address research organisations (or networks of organisations) that propose to train cohorts of researchers and/or implement exchange programmes for researchers. These organisations will select directly the researchers they wish to recruit or to second in the framework of a network. There are host actions for Initial Training Networks (ITNs) to bring academia and industry together to set up a coherent and structured training programme in a specific discipline. The network advertises open positions and selects a cohort from the best candidates for the training programme. Technology and knowledge transfer actions – including Industry–Academia Partnerships and Pathways for exchanges between industry and academia, as well as International Research Staff Exchange Scheme for exchanges between Europe and the rest of the world – are also implemented through host-driven actions.

In what ways do ITNs provide the means for research teams to collaborate? How flexible are these frameworks, and to what extent do you promote multidisciplinary research?

Partners in an ITN are first of all joining their potential to provide benchmarking training programmes for early stage researchers (mostly PhD level). They use their complementary resources (eg. specific techniques and knowledge from different scientific fields, or from the private and academic sectors) to provide state-of-the-art training, thus offering the best possibilities for beneficiary researchers to develop their careers. But ITNs are also networking in their scientific activities, involving the young researchers as part of their training, which allows them to benefit in terms of scientific collaborations. It goes without saying that multidisciplinary research, along with cross-sector collaborations, are important elements of these networks.

What strategies are you employing to involve less-favoured regions of the EU, as well as Associated and Candidate EU states?

Marie Curie Actions are bottom-up and have neither scientific nor geographic priorities. Selection is based purely on excellence and the potential of the participants and beneficiary researchers. Less favoured regions, Associated and Candidate EU countries are encouraged to participate under that competitive basis. To provide the maximum amount of information for each country, we support an extensive network of National Contact Points and in those regions where awareness is lower than elsewhere, within the network we encourage cross-region training and experience sharing. This way, applications from proposers will improve and become more successful.

How are you facilitating the transfer of knowledge through your fellowships? What organisations do you target to develop new areas of competence?

All Marie Curie Actions contribute to knowledge transfer. Some of them, such as the Industry-Academia Partnerships or the International Research Staff Exchange Scheme, are actions where the entire rationale is based around the circulation of knowledge by the balanced participation of researchers from different countries or sectors, thus generating or enhancing research networks.

Marie Curie training actions also include a huge potential for transfer of knowledge. For example, individual fellowships – typically two year post-docs in another country – allow the researchers to stay in contact after the fellowship and thus build a network of connections which will serve them in their later careers. These professional contacts are essential to the mobility of researchers.

Can you shed light on the importance of the conferences and training courses initiated by Marie Curie Actions? What opportunities do they present for participants? More specifically, can you offer an insight into the developments which have stemmed from recent activities?

The transfer of knowledge through training courses and conferences is a major element of the Marie Curie Actions approach. They support the practical development of transferable skills in areas such as Intellectual Property Rights, where the European Patent Office organises training for the MCA as third party provider.

While conferences and training courses were a separate Marie Curie action in the previous Framework Programme (FP6), they are now included as built-in mechanisms in host-driven actions such as ITNs or Industry-Academia Partnerships and Pathways (IAPP). The programme also organises, on a regular basis, major events for all Marie Curie fellows, such as the satellite conference through to the EuroScience Open Forum that took place in Turin in June 2010.

How is Marie Curie Actions attracting experienced or promising researchers from Third Countries to work and undertake research training in Europe and, conversely, how are you reinforcing the international dimension of the career of European researchers?

For most of Marie Curie Actions, researchers from all over the world are eligible for funding through ITNs, Individual Fellowships, Career Integration Grants, and Co-funding of regional, national and international programmes (COFUND).

The EU has opened these schemes to European and international researchers, with an expected increased budget over the next couple of years for all of them. The by-product of this openness and increased budget is that the actions attract attention from outside of the EU. Transfer of skills, knowledge and experience is thus promoted, and motivated researchers from all over the world are attracted. And when returning to their home countries, the connections with European researchers and research organisations often lead to ongoing collaborations, which are ultimately beneficial to European research.

Given your breadth of actions, what is your most successful initiative and why?

Marie Curie Actions cannot and should not be compared in terms of how successful they are. All actions serve different objectives: initial training of researchers in ITNs; advanced training for experienced researchers or transfer of knowledge towards Europe in Individual Fellowships; the enhancement of sustainable industry-academia collaborations in IAPP, the support for starting a permanent career as a researcher in Europe in Career Integration Grants, etc. Some actions are more specifically for individual researchers, because they require a certain level of experience and tailor-made solutions, while other actions mainly address organisations and companies.

Depending on the actions, there are varying numbers of applicants and, consequently, differences in success rates. The actions with the highest number of applicants are traditionally Individual Fellowships, which attract up to 5,000 candidates per year. However, ITNs have the lowest success rate due to the much higher cost of a network.

The message is that there is no ‘most successful Marie Curie action’, but that they are a coherent set of actions covering the areas that need to be developed in the context of human resources within the European research arena.

By what means are you linked to EURAXESS?

‘EURAXESS – Researchers in Motion’ is one of the specific support actions of the People Programme. It is an initiative to promote research careers and facilitate the mobility of researchers across Europe. It comprises a variety of services to help researchers find and secure their ideal research position, no matter where they are from. It provides them with a wealth of information on job and funding opportunities across Europe, personalised assistance to those moving to another European country or returning to Europe, as well as information on their rights and obligations. EURAXESS also provides interactive web services to European researchers working abroad in order to keep them linked among themselves and with Europe. All this with a single point of access: the EURAXESS portal (http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess).

What benefits are yielded by being a horizontal programme?

The main advantage of a specific programme that is open to almost all areas of scientific and technological research is the ability to give full support to the whole of FP7, in proportion to the demand. It also allows the EU to go beyond the areas covered in the framework programme, except nuclear (which is already covered by the EURATOM Treaty). While other programmes have set funding priorities for specific targeted issues (information technology, energy, ecological, etc.), Marie Curie Actions are bottom-up – that is, they are open to all scientific fields, with a selection process purely based on excellence.

In what direction do you hope to see Marie Curie Actions moving in the future? Are there any plans that you are currently outlining?

Discussions about the future development of Marie Curie Actions have started, but it is definitely premature to say what will come out of it. The Commission has presented its global EU 2020 Strategy, aiming inter alia at building an Innovation Union, and including initiatives such as ‘Youth on the Move’ and ‘New Skills for New Jobs’ to boost employment. These initiatives need to be taken into account; at the same time, we need to consider the call for the simplification and streamlining of the Marie Curie Actions.

Is there any other area of Marie Curie Actions you would like to highlight?

An issue of importance relates to gender. Marie Curie applicants are c. 40 per cent female at the early career phase. This is consistently seen across calls, even if there are marked differences in scientific fields and actions. Awards are made on an equal basis, and indeed success rates for male and female researchers are similar, which we consider a very important achievement. As female researchers are, however, more likely to take a career break for family reasons, they often face problems re-entering research after this period. To counteract such discrimination, the Marie Curie Actions have recently launched a special panel – Career Restart – to help researchers get back into the loop. By judging them on their skills when they left research, we hope to avoid the bias faced when trying to return to a subject after an absence.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/

Andreas Wild, Executive Director, talks to International Innovation about the birth of ENIAC JU, and indicates how this public-private partnership strengthens collaboration across the European nanoelectronics industry

What do you see as the motivation behind ENIAC, and why was ENIAC Joint Undertaking (JU) created?

ENIAC’s activity commenced with the Lisbon Agenda in 2000. The Council, initially established to create a common market in Europe, engaged in generating a new type of society based on innovation. Several phases were involved in progressing in that direction: initially, industrial representatives informally met as part of an advisory council and called themselves ENIAC. They sought to elaborate on the Strategic Research Agenda first published in 2006, and advised the European Commission in launching its calls for research proposals. With FP7 beginning in 2008, their purpose evolved, encompassing implementation work. It was determined that a smaller, independent entity may be more effective in implementing the research agenda. These entities have been organised in the form of Joint Undertakings, ENIAC JU being the one in nanoelectronics. We are a legal entity, a Union body which can allocate grants to projects that are selected through a competitive process. We also perform technical reviews of the execution, thus being involved in all phases of research.

Could you explain the relationship between the Association for European Nanoelectronics Activities (AENEAS), an association representing the main R&D actors (companies, research centres and universities) in nanoelectronics in Europe, and ENIAC JU?

AENEAS has an extremely important role and is a member of ENIAC Joint Undertaking. They are assigned with various tasks including the nomination of the Industry and Research Committee elaborating the research agenda, and have 50 per cent of the votes in the Governing Board. The Governing Board make decisions based on a 75 per cent majority, ensuring that no decision can be made without the support of AENEAS. They therefore enjoy an extremely powerful position in terms of directing the work of ENIAC Joint Undertaking.

How are you developing key competencies in nanoelectronics to strengthen European competitiveness and sustainability?

Our method of operation is based upon our competitive project proposal system: industry organises consortia on subjects related to the content of our calls, they submit the proposals, and ENIAC JU competitively evaluates them, employing independent experts. Once the projects are selected for funding by our Public Authorities Board, they are contractualised and can begin.

European Commission and EU Member and Associated States with AENEAS, what has ENIAC JU facilitated thus far?

The concept of combining the Member States’ and the Union’s funding to support research topics as defined by the industry represents a new type of public-private partnership, bringing the existing partnership in Europe to the next level. Currently we are trying to optimise the mechanisms enabling us to direct EU resources to strengthen existing points of excellency in Member States, to create a strong value chain in Europe, and to identify and eliminate the gaps and weak points. We have made considerable progress towards finding mechanisms to unite these various interests represented by the actors in the ENIAC Joint Undertaking.

The involvement of many actors does increase complexity and perceived bureaucracy, but it also provides a platform for the participants to negotiate, present their priorities and balance them with the goals of other participants to ensure that a coherent approach will emerge at European level, and that the harmonisation of local, national and industrial interests takes place. We cannot apply pressure or oblige the actors to move: this is both complex and exciting, since actors are converging and creating a synergetic picture without brute force.

By what means are you working towards synergising and coordinating European R&D efforts?

We achieve synergy by trying to encourage active involvement from all participants in the programme. Industry now has a precisely defined role; similarly, public authorities must negotiate and converge towards a joint decision as to where the money is spent. The EU – through the European Commission representatives – also imposes some requirements in terms of equality of treatment, fairness, openness of the call, etc. We have to comply with all these regulations and, in order to do so, we establish intensive dialogue. Member States have begun to realise their vital role in the programme, proving that we have made progress in this direction. They have recognised that if they do not communicate between themselves and express their priorities and interests regarding the best solution for an optimised global result, then the programme will have no impact. Therefore, to achieve synergy a clearly defined goal and purpose must be developed, as well as a means to measure progress towards that goal. In this vein we monitor the progress of European industry activities in comparison with other regions of the world in global competition. We then engage in very active dialogue to select the topics in which our resources can make a difference, and the means by which this can be achieved.

Could you outline the methods you are employing to promote the involvement of SMEs in your activities?

Our statute requires that we promote SMEs and their participation in the programme. Among the 336 participating companies, 41.7 per cent are SMEs, 23.2 per cent large companies, and 35.1 per cent are represented by research institutes and public entities.

The participation of SMEs in our programme is reasonable and we must continue supporting them, however, our approach ensures that all kinds of participants are involved in the projects. For example, projects that make the most impact are very seldom small teams working in isolation, and in order to influence global competition it is essential to have the whole ecosystem involved, including large companies supported by SMEs and research centres often acting as collaborators, vendors, suppliers or customers.

What areas of innovative high-tech applications are you both driving and driven by?

Our Strategic Research Agenda specifically highlights several areas in which Europe is traditionally very strong. For instance, Europe is the leading market for semiconductors applied to the automotive industry; the largest consumption of semiconductors for this application takes place here. Clearly we must, therefore, merge electronic and transportation applications in our strategic research.

In our research agenda there are also other topics where Europe has the opportunity to take a leadership position. One of these areas is related to the ageing population: in Europe we see life expectancy increasing, and therefore have an immediate need to develop technologies to consider this phenomenon. If we do a good job developing information technology that incorporates this area of activity, European companies have a chance to become leaders in this field. Another example is the European traditional ecological awareness that shall help us assume a leadership position in developing nanoelectronics solutions for green technologies.

Looking towards the future, what targets has ENIAC JU set out, and how will you improve the coordination of European research in nanoelectronics? Can you outline some of the challenges you are facing?

To improve the coordination of European research in nanoelectronics we have active links to other types of public-private partnerships, such as the Eureka Cluster. We also have relations with other Joint Undertakings and Clusters that are not specifically in the field of nanoelectronics but are linked to what we perform here. At ENIAC JU, we are trying to find a coherent, overarching strategy that allows us to leverage the specificities of each funding mechanism, ensuring maximum impact for industry in global competition.

Why has dissemination become so vital in today’s research climate?

Dissemination in its traditional form has some limitations with regard to nanoelectronics, which thrives on an economy of scale and gets increasingly concentrated. However, in terms of academic research environments – where the novelty of the idea is on a long-term horizon – collaboration and dissemination leads to faster progress and greater impact, effectively producing a sustained flux of innovation which is vital for the global competitiveness of the European industry.

Is there any other aspect of ENIAC JU that you would like to discuss?

I believe that the Joint Undertaking, and the way it is structured and organised, has the potential to contribute to the upward trend of the European nanoelectronics industry. There are, however, a few difficulties to solve. For example, we have not been able to entirely convince the Member States about the effectiveness of the mechanisms we have found to ensure this programme’s smooth running. As a result, the budget of ENIAC JU is under-utilised. This is a major issue because we are looking at an industry that is engaged in very tough global competition and needs all the support we can offer. To have help available, and not be able to find a mechanism to ensure it is applied successfully, represents a serious concern. My top priority for the next three years is to identify the projects that will justify a level of funding in-line with the available budgets, and to implement, simplify and evolve the funding mechanisms to ensure a high effectiveness of funding. Our success will consist of a recognisable contribution to the global competitiveness of the European nanoelectronics industry.

www.eniac.eu

Nanoelectronics is a burgeoning industry, and collaboration is the key to its future success. The European Nanoelectronics Initiative Advisory Council is a driving force behind the development and application of new nanotechnologies

THE EUROPEAN NANOELECTRONICS Initiative Advisory Council (ENIAC) is a public-private partnership between the European Commission, 18 nations and the Association for European NanoElectronics Activities (AENEAS), a European association combining the European industry and research scientists in the field of micro- and nanoelectronics. ENIAC was established in 2004 as the Technology Platform for Nanoelectronics, with the principal goal of defi ning common research and innovation priorities to ensure a truly competitive nanoelectronics industry in Europe. The €3 billion investment in ENIAC, pledged for a 10 year period, represents a substantial boost to the longer-term developments based on nanoelectronics, which will largely supersede the current generation of microelectronic devices within that time period.

ENIAC has expressed a desire to meet the needs of the public in their everyday lives by assisting in the creation of innovative multimedia equipment in the home, new safer cars and better, personalised medical care. To achieve this, ENIAC has invested heavily in bringing together the most prominent scientists in the discipline of nanoelectronics research by forming collaborations with Europe’s leading industrial groups and research organisations, establishing the ENIAC Scientifi c Community Council in order to enable a greater participation level from Universities and small and medium sized enterprises. These initiatives have met with an extremely high level of response, with more than 570 collaborators from 23 European countries submitting 27 project summaries in response to the 2009 ENIAC Joint Undertaking Call for Proposals, competing for over €200 million of R&D funding.

The true importance of ENIAC lies in its provision of a platform for all European nanotechnologies developments, assisting users in the everincreasing levels of complexity required in the understanding, innovation and application of nanoelectronics. The average nanoelectronic component is a millionth of the size of its microelectronics equivalent, and with such an obvious improvement there is little doubting the fact that the fi eld is amongst Europe’s fastest growing industries. In order to maximise efficiency in the development of new technologies, ENIAC founded Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs) to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration in fi elds where Europe could improve its product development, such as fuel cells and hydrogen storage, aeronautics, embedding computer systems and innovative medicines. It has also been fundamental in promoting a common vision to increase EU-wide, national and private funding for R&D initiatives and infrastructure and has increased the effi cacy of these investments.

ENIAC holds accelerating the generation of new knowledge, and removing the obstacles that limit the market penetration of new technologies, as two primary goals. In order to achieve this, they are promoting better access and knowledge of new research, investigating and improving productivity and competitiveness while working with various authorities to increase awareness of the opportunities that nanoelectronic products can provide. This dissemination has been further bolstered by 30 ENIAC supported technology platforms, which cover particular strategic areas such as nanotechnologies, photonics and robotics, and its sponsorship of an annual European Nanoelectronics Forum which has increased Europe’s profile in these fi elds and cemented its position as a world leader in nanotechnologies.

With the severe economic downturn in mind, it is essential for Europe to remain a global powerhouse in the research and production of new technologies, to ensure that it maintains its current reputation for high quality innovation and research. ENIAC is a motivating force seeking ultimately to improve the lives of citizens through nanoelectronics, while providing suffi cient provision for ongoing development into the future.

www.eniac.eu

Could you describe Photonics21’s mission and what prompted its formation?

The European Technology Platform Photonics21 was founded in 2005 with the goal of uniting the photonics community in Europe, which, at that time, was completely fragmented. Now, the main mission of Photonics21 is to foster Europe-wide collaboration between industry, science and politics and to align their efforts in all areas of photonics. It is essential to define common strategies and join forces in order to reach critical mass along the entire value chain and thus translate knowledge into leading-edge products.

It was important for us to run this platform as an industry-driven platform – with a majority of SMEs – clearly focused on those priorities in research and innovation which are driven by application and market needs.

In broad terms, can you explain the significance of photonics research and its application?

Light is a quite versatile tool. To give you some examples: we utilise optical fibres and network components to speed up information transfer in ICT; light can be used for the early diagnosis of diseases like cancer in medical technologies; photonics can be used to generate light in future lighting technologies such as LEDs and OLEDs, and even to utilise light in energy production, as in photovoltaics.

Photonics also acts as an enabler for other products: photonic components such as lasers enable completely new manufacturing technologies which, in turn, produce lightweight structures such as those used in transportation. Sensors are key components for safer cars and greater security, ranging from process controls to surveillance. The 21st Century will be the century of the photon – just as the 20th Century was that of the electron.

Since 2005, Photonics21 has grown to include more than 1,600 members from 49 countries, uniting the majority of leading photonics industries and relevant R&D stakeholders along the entire economic value chain throughout Europe. To what extent have you reached your targets – and are you satisfied?

We are undoubtedly satisfied to a certain degree with what we have achieved over the past five years. However, there are still many challenges ahead of us and we need to make sure our excellent research results are successfully translated into innovations. We have launched many research projects in the field of photonics which have produced excellent results, for instance the Combined Organic LED Technology for Large Area Transparent and Low Cost Lighting Applications (CombOLED) project, with its demonstration of flat transparent light tiles, and the Infrared Imaging Components for Use in Automotive Safety Applications (ICU) project, which has developed night vision systems based on infrared imaging components for safer automobiles, to name but two.

Especially important was the decision by the European Commission in 2009 to select photonics as one of the five ‘Key Enabling Technologies’ (KET) of Europe. It was selected alongside technologies like nanotechnology and biotechnology which are probably more familiar to the general public.

Can you give some examples as to how photonics can help provide solutions for the major societal challenges mentioned in the EU 2020 Strategy, such as Climate Change, Ageing Society, and Safety and Security?

There are actually numerous examples. Let me just illustrate photonics’ contribution to energy efficiency. Energy efficient lighting solutions which include traditional green products as well as Soli State Lighting – ie. LEDs and OLEDs – offer potential energy savings of up to 50 per cent. Combined with intelligent light management systems, the potential savings rise to 70 per cent.

Or take the fast expanding ICT sector with its high carbon footprint and energy consumption, which – even today – exceeds that of all global air traffic. Networks based entirely on optical components could result in energy savings of up to 90 per cent.

Other areas pertain to sensor technology and healthcare. Tiny devices like sensors play a key role in many areas, for instance in enabling energy efficiency with smart power grids or modern buildings management. And in healthcare, photonic technologies have a long tradition ranging from microscopes and fluorescence methods for in vivo cancer diagnostics to minimally invasive treatments.

An impressive list – but how great an impact will photonics have on the growth and competitiveness of the European economy?

With regard to competitiveness: in many sectors, European companies not only lead in R&D, but also have a leading market share in global sales, eg. lighting > 35 per cent; or 45 per cent in production. Overall, Europe accounts for about 20 per cent of the global photonics turnover which currently amounts to 300 billion euros. Furthermore, according to statistics published in our Stategic Research Agenda 2010, there are nearly 300,000 jobs involved in photonics in Europe, with about 5,000 SMEs.

However, photonics as an enabling technology has a much greater impact on raising the growth and competitiveness of European industries than is shown by the above figures. If we look at the contribution made by photonic technologies on most of the manufacturing industries, the increase in added value may be in double digits compared with the added value in the directly involved industries. And this also applies to the number of jobs – both high-tech and sustainable ones.

What are your expectations in regard to the KET initiative? In what ways can the research and output of the European photonics community be enhanced?

The challenge for Europe is not only to lead in technology, but also to exploit these results though a successful market transfer. One reason for this is that potential innovations tend to fall through the gap between successful science and pilot-scale industrial deployments – often referred to as the ‘Valley of Death’.

There is a need for measures across the entire value chain for bridging this gap in order to get great ideas and inventions into the market at a quicker rate. These measures should be comprehensive and not limited to individual DGs. In short, we need an innovation strategy and not just an R&D strategy.

Within the KET initiative, we propose four key measures for advancing photonics as a Key Enabling Technology in Europe. One key element is the launch of large pilot-scale deployment programmes using photonic innovations to leverage EU infrastructure and create jobs. The aim of these infrastructural projects is to provide benefits to all 500 million people in the EU and not just those people involved in the direct value chain of photonics.

In this respect, we need to think big rather than in small, fragmented areas of activity. These large-scale demonstration actions must have a significant funding budget to reach critical mass. In that way, market penetration can be accelerated, as a market demand of sufficient size is generated.

A second element – though related to the first – is a KET-focused European R&D financing arm that does not stop at early precompetitive R&D, but results in manufacturable prototypes. And we need speed: existing submission and selection processes for funded projects take up too much time and resources – especially for SMEs.

The use of public procurement to foster deployment and thus create market demand is a third measure which, in our view, can be a crucial catalyst for photonics innovations.

And last but not least, the venture capital infrastructure in Europe is relatively weak compared to other countries. In this respect, the establishment of EC-backed funds to facilitate access to capital for photonics start-ups could leverage private-sector investments.

Your statements are in line with the ‘European Innovation Unit’ Flagship Initiative which has been outlined by Máire Geoghegan- Quinn, Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science. In what way is Photonics21 responding to this initiative?

This Flagship Initiative expresses much of what we feel is conducive to our vision. It contains a clear analysis of some of the weaknesses that all of us recognise – specifically, the weakness in our ability to turn research strength into innovation, market success and, ultimately, jobs.

It also addresses the complicated and fragmented funding processes, high levels of bureaucracy, lack of value-chain thinking, and ineffective competence spread in various Directorates General and national and European funding programmes.

On the whole, therefore, we have received the initiative in a very positive manner and will support efforts to deliver improvements. And this is the crucial part: making it happen! We have seen many good ideas and programmes become somewhat diluted. In view of the tremendous challenges we are facing in these times, this is something we all need to avoid.

www.photonics21.org