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

Firstly, could you give an overview of the Ministry’s remit and what its main functions are?

The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture is responsible for the whole field of education, science and applied research policy. The Ministry’s main aim and objective is to make sure that Finnish society has highly educated citizens who are able to fulfil the versatile needs of an open, competitive and democratic country, and that education is equally available to all.

From an education perspective, what are some of the challenges facing Finland and how is the Ministry navigating them?

Finland does fairly well in many international comparisons in the field of education. Nonetheless, most countries aim to succeed by investing in education and it takes real effort to ensure that Finland is at the global forefront in the level of its education and the level of education among its citizens.

In international terms, we have succeeded in reaching a quite acceptable in the amount of higher education graduates entering the labour market. However, we are seriously lagging behind in the amount of graduates from tertiary education in our younger labour market cohorts. In less than 20 years we have gone from 1st place in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in comparison to 18th. Reversing this trend is crucial to our future as a society that is basing its success on education and expertise. This means that we will reform our funding systems so that they not only support high quality and efficiency, but also take into account different kinds of operating environments. This is especially important in the field of basic education in order for us to really be able to ensure that schools have enough resources to provide equal opportunities for different kinds of learners from all socioeconomic backgrounds.

What emphasis is being placed on research and how fundamental is this to the development of science in Finland?

Finland has made long-term investment in research and competencies. This has been a successful strategy. It is largely thanks to this investment and our culture of cooperation that our economy and society have been able to renew even in times of crisis. Finland fares well in different reviews gauging the performance and safety of our society, education, welfare and the innovation system. What is more, the country seeks a permanent position as one of the spearhead countries in knowledge and competence. This is also one of the main messages of the government that took office in June 2011. The aim for the government is an active, open, just and bold Finland. Research and its institutions have a huge role to play in this.

In 2007 R&D expenditure represented 3.5 per cent of Finland’s total GDP, putting the country among the OECD’s top nations. Finnish R&D expenditure was about €6.2 billion; is the Ministry seeking to increase this figure over the coming years?

Finland’s target GDP level for R&D financing is 4 per cent. We intend to keep to this very ambitious goal during the government’s current term.

It is worth noting that business and industry provide 70 per cent of the R&D expenditure in Finland. As an open economy we are very dependent on exports and the global market. Therefore it is crucial that our innovation environment is attractive to companies and investors. Given the current stringency measures, I do not see any prospect for increasing public R&D expenditure in the near future.

Our investment in R&D is among the best in the world, but minuscule in global terms – only 0.5 per cent of the world’s aggregated R&D. It is all the more important to ensure that we have world-class research and global visibility as a potential partner to other countries. We must make firm choices that support specialisation in our competitive strong areas and identify and support promising research, knowledge and business sectors.

By what means is the Ministry meeting the issues faced by science, such as the economic downturn, globalisation, the threat of climate change and the scarcity of natural resources, as well as the ageing population? What role can governments and policy play in addressing Finland (and Europe)’s shifting needs? Do you think that these global issues are beyond the remit of single governments?

Global problems involve challenges and risks that even major powers cannot solve alone. The key to finding answers is international cooperation and networking. For Finland to be able to make a lasting contribution, we need to offer high-level knowledge and competencies. As I see it, Finland could develop a profile in areas relating to ageing and nature-friendly technologies. Political action and everyday choices have a part to play in managing global problems. Our education, science and innovation policy, resourcing, and development of instruments and action are systematically informed by the major social challenges.

Do you think that Finland is placing too much emphasis on innovation? Could you highlight some areas where you have seen success as a result of increased innovation?

During international and domestic evaluations, there has been debate about the priorities in research and innovation financing. It has been claimed that basic research and research quality has suffered from excessive emphasis on innovation. However, the effectiveness of our innovation system can be seen in the growth of productivity, industrial production, exports and GDP. We are above the OECD average in all of these areas.

Having said that, we have to remain constantly alert to achieve balanced development of the research and innovation system. Basic research and comprehensive competencies are a precondition for the creation of new, radical innovations and their practical application. In the future, we need to pay more attention to service innovations, innovation in the public sector and the development of social innovations.

In what way is the Ministry of Education and Science affecting policy of the future? To what degree is the Ministry developing science policy to strengthen research?

Our recent university reform was a major input into the future and a spearhead project in the renewal of the innovation system. I have also launched a reform of our polytechnics which carry out R&D. There are also important ongoing reforms relating to research infrastructures, research careers, internationalisation and access to publicly produced information. Other major research policy actions include a structural reform geared to step up resource use and the development of knowledge clusters as a joint action by several partners.

One of the preconditions for balanced and sustainable development is productivity growth in all sectors of the economy. We need to draw more benefit from our significant R&D investment and be able to turn our knowledgeable and well-educated workforce into economic growth, investments and jobs. This requires that we step up the utilisation of knowledge and competencies.

Are you coordinating with other Nordic countries, and how vital is collaboration to Finland’s growth?

For historical reasons, Nordic countries are our natural partners. Our education and research systems are very similar, and we have several joint instruments, such as top-level research initiatives, which are decided at ministerial level and administered by the Nordic research organisation, NordForsk.

Being part of value chains is imperative for a small country like Finland. Collaboration often takes place in international and global forums. Although Finland is an active participant in the European Research and Innovation Area, reviews show that one of our weaknesses is insufficient internationalisation. Finland must enhance its appeal and visibility in research on the basis of its national strengths in order to develop stronger cooperation contacts and attract foreign intellectual capital and investments.

If you had to outline one target for the future of Finnish science, what would it be and how achievable is it?

My answer to this is short: constant concern about the quality of research. Some studies have found that the quality and impact of research have not been developing as favourably in Finland as in our competitor countries. The precondition for Finland’s appeal as a cooperation partner and an investment target is that we have comprehensive research of a very high standard, which is even world-class in some areas. One of our undeniable assets is the constant evidence-based renewal of our system. This is why I believe that the standard will rise yet further when we have completed the ongoing reforms. Success in the face of ever stiffer competition will require changes in established procedures, structural development, trials, bolder risk-taking and steering, and incentives in support of it.

www.minedu.fi/OPM/?lang=en

Could you outline the main aims and objectives of the Ministry of Science and Technology?

The main objectives of the Israeli Ministry of Science and Technology are to deal with issues concerning science and technology policy, emphasising long-term planning, the definition of highly priority areas, and optimising support for its applied research effort. Such policies purport to further enhance Israel’s investment in strategic research infrastructures, both physical and human, acknowledging the fact that our country’s most precious assets are its human resources. Furthermore, our Ministry is active in deepening bilateral cooperation with foreign countries and international scientific institutions and organisations. The Ministry also seeks to strengthen the ties between scientists and the broader Israeli community, with emphasis on both social and geographic peripheries. In addition, the Ministry is responsible for the Israeli Space Agency, which is in charge of fostering the development of civil space technologies; the National Council for Research and Development, a statutory body which advises the Israeli Government in matters of policy and budget regarding civil national R&D; and also chairs the Chief Scientists Forum.

In terms of science and technology research, where would you say that Israel particularly excels, in comparison to other countries?

Israel is a small country both in territory and in population, with few natural resources and struggling since its independence for peace and security. Given those unfavourable conditions, our country has had no other alternative but to excel and lead in scientific and technological areas, and thus seeks to maintain top-level standards in scientific research. For that, as previously mentioned, we devote our greatest possible endeavours to developing our best natural resource: our people. Accordingly, we are proud that Israel comes first in the world in national investment in R&D, with 4.6 per cent of the GNP. Moreover, 0.5 per cent of the overall Israeli population are scientists – 133 scientists per 10,000 employees – and we are leading in this aspect too.

In terms of the number of scientific publications per capita, Israel is similarly competitive; it comes third in the world in citations per capita, and takes the lead in six out of 20 main research fields. 1 per cent of all worldwide scientific publications were written by Israeli scientists, and 2 per cent in mathematics. And of course, last but not least, we are proud that no less than five Israeli scientists achieved the Nobel Prize in the first decade of the 21st Century, namely Professor Daniel Kahneman (Economics, 2002), Professor Avram Hershko and Professor Aaron Ciechanover (Chemistry, 2004), Professor Robert Aumann (Economics, 2005) and Professor Ada Yonath (Chemistry, 2009).

To what extent do you promote cross-disciplinary studies and research?

Indeed, we very much encourage cross- and even multidisciplinary scientific strategic research in fields the Israeli Government defines as high priority ones. As a matter of fact, proposals submitted to our Ministry in cross-disciplinary fields of science are preferred in the framework of our strategic research programme. Examples of such a multidisciplinary approach we find in fields such as bioinformatics or studies of ageing, in which bio-medical, psychological, behavioural and social sciences come together.

How do you ensure a high standard of research?

As a small country with limited resources, Israel cannot afford to devote itself to every single field of science and invest accordingly. For that reason, it is essential that a leading hand directs the efforts towards the desired goals. One of the main tasks of the Ministry of Science and Technology is to consolidate the leading role of Israel in the international scientific and technological arena, by ways of directing the national effort to objectives defined in our long-term R&D policies, and leveraging the relative advantages of Israel. More specifically, our Ministry seeks to bridge over the ‘missing link’ between basic, ‘curiosity-driven’ research, and industrial research, which is relatively short-term, benefit-orientated research, by means of fostering what we define as ‘strategic research’, directed to practical areas in fields of national interest, which are still too far from immediate application to warrant industrial investment. Thus, we put our emphasis in encouraging and developing cutting-edge fields of technology and science; these include advanced computer science & engineering, marine science, petrol substitutes for transport, and renewable energy, among others.

To what extent are you involved in providing state-of-the-art scientific equipment to researchers?

The Israel Science Foundation, the institution which focuses on supporting basic research performed at the universities, has several programmes for providing funding for sophisticated scientific equipment for researchers, and special funding granted in combination with the Forum for National Scientific Infrastructures for purchasing nanotechnology research equipment. Besides that, for the last 10 years our Ministry has promoted and established, a number of Knowledge Centers located in research institutions throughout the country, each of them with cutting-edge expertise in a different field of knowledge, which seek to provide and put at the whole community of researchers’ disposal every existing, state-of-the-art resource, infrastructure or source of knowledge, whether physical, technological, human or other, for the sake of their research on a completely open, equalitarian basis.

Are you committed to funding any international research projects?

The Ministry of Science and Technology of Israel is responsible for initiating and implementing the official agreements signed by the State of Israel with other countries and international and multilateral organisations in the fields of science and technology. Accordingly, we have active bilateral scientific programmes with leading countries like Germany, France, Japan, China, Italy, South Korea, India, Russia and many others, within which we jointly fund binational research projects based on joint proposals. Besides, our Ministry represents Israel and participates in the funding of major international scientific institutions, organisations and ventures, such as the European Union Framework Programme for R&D (FP7), the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), the European Molecular Biology Conference (EMBC) and SESAME, the Synchrotron-Light for Experimental Science Applications in the Middle East, an ambitious project which intends to build a synchrotron in Jordan, where Israel participates alongside with Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, the Palestinian Authority and Turkey.

What vital role do networks and collaborative research play in today’s evolving research arena?

In today’s globalised society, it would be unthinkable to conceive of substantial progress being made in any scientific or technological field, without close cooperation and personal contacts between scientists and researchers from the partner countries. My Ministry is determined to further expand, strengthen and deepen the scientific and technological ties between the State of Israel and the leading countries and main research institutions and multinational scientific projects and organisations, in order to join forces for the sake of the progress of mankind. Our country is well networked and positioned within the elite of world science, which enables Israeli researchers to enjoy excellent contacts and outstanding working relations with their peers, to make use of valuable research equipment abroad and to have full accessibility to international funding sources.

How would you summarise your success as a Ministry? To what degree is the research the government fund at the vanguard of their field of inquiry? Please give some examples.

One good example is the field of electro-optics: some years ago, our Ministry decided to nurture and foster this area, and thus we funded some 40 strategic research projects which dealt specifically with electro-optics technologies. Today, we have no less than 150 Israeli companies who engage in this area, from start-up companies to big concerns employing thousands of workers, and as a result, the Israeli electro-optics sector is now US $5 billion per year industry and counting. Incidentally, I can tell almost the same story about the field of nanotechnology, which for the last decade the Government of Israel has considered a high-priority national area of research and funding.

Has the Ministry been negatively affected by the economic downturn?

The global financial crisis did not skip over Israel, and as a natural consequence of the budgetary pressures that rose, lateral cuts were inevitable all across the national budget. However, despite that, and well aware that investment is crucial in order to ensure excellence in scientific research and technological development, the Israeli Government decided to allocate further monetary resources in this direction, thus increasing the budget of the Ministry by almost 50 per cent. I am glad to see that Israel still shows a strong commitment towards the progress of science and technology in the country.

What strategies are helping you to draw more young researchers into science?

We make continuous efforts in bringing science and scientists closer to young people and the community and vice versa. For instance, our Ministry proposes extra-curricular studying programmes and courses for young students, especially those living in peripheral areas, including some specially tailored for the orthodox sector. We also conduct annual events which seek to make science more friendly for the large public, such as the Science Festival, in which the Regional R&D Centers open their doors once a year and offer a great deal of scientific activities suitable for the whole family, and the Researchers’ Night, with the support of the European Union, when research institutions and science museums make themselves available to the public and host a series of fun scientific activities.

The Israeli Government also encourages scientists living abroad to return home, by ways of offering them a wide range of benefits and assistance, which may include financial support, jobs either in the Public Service or the private sector, granting scholarships and more.

What plans do you have for the future?

The Ministry is placing much emphasis in the development of Israel’s capacities regarding civil space technologies through ISA, the Israeli Space Agency. The State of Israel is nowadays one of the 10 leading countries when it comes to civil space technologies, and we intend to further impel the present momentum to continue with the significant achievements we have already accomplished. For instance, as of the beginning of 2011, we have signed two major agreements regarding mutual cooperation in space research, exploration and investment with ESA, the European Space Agency, and most recently with Roscosmos, the Russian Federal Space Agency.

We also have an excellent continuing relationship with NASA, with whose cooperation Israel launched the first Israeli astronaut in space, the late Colonel Ilan Ramon who perished in the Columbia disaster in 2003; with the Indian Space Research Organisation; and we have current joint development programmes with both the Space Agencies of France – with whom we intend to build the French-Israeli satellite VENμS, based on Israeli technology – and Italy, with whom we are developing an important project of colour high-resolution pictures of planet Earth from the space named SHALOM. We definitely wish to extend the Israeli space programme to a much larger scale in the future. Our space programme is only one in a number of cardinal multi-year projects the Ministry of Science and Technology intends to support.

www.most.gov.il

Firstly, could you explain your role within DG Research & Innovation?

The Directorate General for Research & Innovation is a very large DG comprising some 12 separate divisions (called directorates) and over 70 units and associated services. I am one of the three Deputy Director-Generals, and the three directorates under my direct responsibility deal with the ERA, research and innovation and international cooperation. In consequence, my portfolio is heavily policy orientated but it does include the management of a significant budget dedicated to research infrastructures, international cooperation, support for social sciences and humanities, science in society, regions of knowledge, research potential, coherent development of policies, and overseeing the support that we give to SMEs in the area of research and innovation.

One of my main current preoccupations is, of course, the implementation of Innovation Union (IU) initiative, which was launched last October as one of seven Europe 2020 flagship initiatives. The IU has 34 ambitious commitments aimed at boosting the EU’s innovation potential. A key theme is the need to ensure that the EU has a coherent single policy approach towards fostering innovation. So, while my Commissioner, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, has the lead responsibility for research and innovation policy, she works very closely with her fellow Commissioners to ensure effective coordination. In practice, this means that some of the 34 IU commitments are being implemented by other DGs.

Do you think European policy as it currently stands supports research and innovation sufficiently?

No, but this is one of the fundamental messages of the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth! The IU together with the other flagship initiatives will show the way forward – but will need commitment on all sides – including the commitment of EU Member States to reform their research and innovation systems. The good news is that heads of EU Member States and governments have endorsed the IU initiative at a European Council meeting earlier this year. This is a major step forward as it recognises that support for innovation is an economic policy instrument – a way of leading us out of the current financial crisis. At the end of this year, the Commission will publish its proposals for supporting research and innovation after the current support mechanisms come to an end in 2013. We will be proposing a single integrated funding programme – called Horizon 2020 – covering the whole range from basic and applied research to innovation in products and services. The idea is to put Europe’s best ideas to work for the continent.

In what areas might you suggest there is room for improvement where research infrastructures are concerned?

Let’s take for example the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI). ESFRI has set out a roadmap, which was updated last year, identifying key large-scale infrastructures where Europe needs to pool effort. We have an IU commitment to implement 60 per cent of this ESFRI roadmap by 2015. That’s quite a lot, but I think we can do it.

Of course, the current financial crisis makes this much more difficult, and we have to look at the complete picture. The ESFRI roadmap is intended for the most important pan-European research infrastructures, but there are also national roadmaps that are making a contribution as well as many initiatives that are outside ESFRI but are still important nationally and regionally. So we have to make sure we can best coordinate our combined efforts in Europe to the greatest effect and this is not simply a question of funding.

Would you say there is a healthy level of Europe-wide scientific competition?

Yes and no. At the EU level the evaluation and selection procedure for project-proposals funded under the Framework Programmes depends on equality of treatment and transparency. Proposals are evaluated by the best experts drawn from across Europe and beyond. Each call for proposals has well defined objectives, the evaluation criteria are published, and the proposers are given a report on the outcome of the evaluation. In recent years, we have also put in place a redress procedure so that proposers can challenge any abnormalities in the way in which their proposals might have been evaluated. All in all, I am confident that this peer review system is among the best in the world and stimulates the highest level of open competition. For example, the evaluation procedure for proposals submitted to the European Research Council, which has an open bottom-up competition based solely on excellence, is so rigorous that some Member States decide to fund reserve-list projects themselves on the basis of the expert-evaluators’ assessment.

However, within Member States the situation is not so clear cut: some Member States have excellent peer review systems and competitive selection procedures; others do not, and funding may go to established researchers on the basis of their reputation rather than on the basis of the excellence of what they propose. This means less support for young innovative researchers or for inspirational researchers who do not conform to accepted dogma. I think that every Member State should have a national system which has a good component of open competitive funding based on international peer review. This is important because this leads to high quality research.

Do you think that the European public trusts the scientific and technological community?

Generally speaking, yes: our Eurobarometer surveys consistently show that Europeans are optimistic about science and technology. For example, last year’s survey showed that 75 per cent of Europeans agree or tend to agree that thanks to science and technology there will be more opportunities for future generations. This is a truly encouraging result.

There is more good news: Europeans want to be more involved in decisions about new technologies when social values are at stake. They also think that scientists should be better at communicating what they do and why it is important. It is clear that some scientists – especially the younger generation – are very good at explaining what they do in non-technical terms, but perhaps communication should become part of the formal training of researchers in universities.

Europeans also have a lot of trust in scientists. About three-quarters think that scientists are doing a good job. This is encouraging, but at the same time, there is some scepticism that scientists cannot always be trusted to tell the truth about controversial scientific and technological issues – especially if they receive money from industry. We need to work on this. Trusted science cannot be confined to ivory towers: the public needs to be confident that technological development and innovation do not take place at the expense of trust or even health, safety, quality of life, societal or environmental concerns.

Indeed, by the end of 2013 we will have committed 330 million euros to research on science in society issues under the Seventh Framework Programme for Research (FP7); that is to say, understanding how science is shaping our modern societies and understanding how the needs of society should be reflected in the way that science is done. Topics such as scientific advice, access to information, and ethical issues are covered, as well as work on public participation in debates, and promoting the role of women in science and promoting scientific culture and education, especially among children and young people on whom we depend for the future.

What work in the field of joint programming are you involved with?

This is a Member State-led process but the Commission plays a crucial role in making sure that the process remains on track. In practice, the participating Member States develop a common vision (on a voluntary basis) on what they would like to do and what challenges they would like to tackle together in a specific area. Once this has been decided they set strategic research agendas together. The Commission’s role is to facilitate this process and ensure certain criteria are fulfilled. This is a learning process for all of us but it is important to tackle fragmentation of effort in Europe and this is the primary objective of joint programming initiatives.

Take nanotechnology, for example. In Europe, we are actually investing more money in nanotechnology research than the U.S., but do we get a better return on this investment? The answer is no: our share in nano-based patents and products is much lower than in the U.S.! Our efforts are too fragmented and we are not using our resources in the most effective way. By having a European-wide open competition for funding we would have the best people in each field receiving support. Joint Programming will allow us to pool resources in such a way that we get the best possible quality and impact from the resources we have in Europe.

How are the policies that you help to develop/facilitate in the ERA contributing to solving some of Europe’s challenges, such as our healthcare needs and the ageing population?

This can be done in different ways: through funding individual projects under the framework programme or strategically through research infrastructures, joint programming, or under the umbrella of the new European Innovation Partnerships (EIP). The EIP concept combines the different supply (research) and demand (eg. regulation, standardisation, public procurement) side measures. Indeed, the first EIP will tackle active and healthy ageing to give Europeans an extra two years of good quality life.

The Horizon 2020 programme that I mentioned earlier will address the key societal challenges that Europe is facing in the globalised world, including the need for better healthcare and mitigating the impact of our ageing populations.

How do you see the IU and ERA moving forward? It is already such a comprehensive system; what remains to be done?

We have a lot to do. We have to ensure that the IU will be implemented. We have made good progress since it was launched on October 6, 2010, but it is still early days. We are also preparing the ERA which is one of the IU’s 34 commitments. The aim is to consolidate and complete the ERA process by the end of 2014. The Commission will make a proposal on this during the course of 2012 to reduce the structural impediments that currently characterise the research landscape in Europe. We are in discussion with Member States, Associated Countries and various stakeholders to analyse the key obstacles that are hindering progress. We will be launching an open consultation on this topic starting in September. It will close two months later in November.

That notwithstanding, we still have to implement all the specific programmes running under the FP7!

Is there anything else you would like to discuss?

Well, clearly – but if I may reinforce a message that I have been trying to convey during this interview, it is that we must work together at all levels. The Commission itself has made remarkable progress over the course of recent years. Gone are the days when we were working in separate ‘silos’: one policy for this, one policy for that. The Europe 2020 Strategy and the changes that have occurred within the Commission have torn down barriers and we now have an integrated approach across all policy areas. We must tear down these policy domain-walls across Europe, fight vested interest, and act in the common good for the future of Europe.

Please note that the European Commission is not affiliated with this publication and the opinions expressed in this interview do not necessarily reflect its position or opinion.

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/research/pauli.html

Attracting talented researchers from across Europe, the EUI has been a hotbed of research in the field of social sciences since 1972. President Josep Borrell Fontelles praises the Institute as a truly European foundation with a rich, vibrant blend of cultures, traditions, languages and values

First of all, could you give us an overview of the main aims and objectives of EUI?

The EUI is an international postgraduate teaching and research institute and its main aim is to ‘develop interdisciplinary research programmes on the major issues confronting contemporary European society’, with a special focus on the matters relating to the construction of Europe. This aim is put forward in the founding Convention of the Institute.

Furthermore, we strive to be a forum for the exchange and discussion of ideas and experience in subjects falling within our areas of study. In doing our work, the EUI aims at academic excellence at all levels, both as a graduate school in the social sciences and as an institution for basic and problem-orientated research.

Why was the EUI originally set up?

The EUI was created as part of the European integration process. However, it is not an EU institution, but an international organisation of its own. After initial ideas of setting up a ‘European Institute’ to complement the construction of Europe in the field of higher education in the late 1940s, the project of a ‘European University’ took shape at governmental level at the Messina Conference of 1955. Following diverse discussions and negotiations, the convention setting up the EUI was finally signed in 1972 in Florence. With the aim to ‘foster the advancement of learning in fields which are of particular interest for the development of Europe’, the Institute opened its doors to the first researchers in 1976.

Since then it has expanded to include new members of the enlarged European Union and has associate links to non-EU Member States, including Switzerland, Norway and Turkey.

How is the EUI organised?

Overall, the EUI rests on three pillars: its PhD programme, its postdoctoral programme, and the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. The PhD programme is the core of the EUI and its activities. It is the largest PhD programme in the social sciences in Europe, and the four key disciplines are economics; history and civilisation; law; and political and social sciences. The postdoctoral Max Weber Programme started in 2006 and is Europe’s most important and largest postdoctoral programme in the social sciences. The Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (RSCAS) is devoted to interdisciplinary, comparative, and policy research on the major issues surrounding the European integration process.

Can you elaborate on what the RSCAS offers?

The RSCAS focuses on interdisciplinary, comparative and policy-orientated research on the major issues surrounding the European integration process. In doing this, it ideally complements and builds on our more basic research that we conduct in our doctoral and postdoctoral work. Thematically, the research conducted is rather broad, but we focus above all on the topics of migration, competition policy and market regulation, European democracy and governance, economic and monetary policy, energy policy as well as on international and transnational relations. The Centre hosts various research programmes and projects, a wide range of working groups and it offers an exquisite European and international atmosphere. Apart from concrete research projects, it also offers various fellowship programmes.

Could you outline how the EUI helps to provide advanced academic training to doctoral researchers?

Our doctoral programme offers advanced courses in each of its disciplines and a broad range of seminars, and it also provides advanced training in methodology and research techniques. Our focus on these elements, combined with a very broad approach regarding methodological and theoretical perspectives, concentrates on the professionalisation of the students and creates a rather unique type of scientist.

Apart from this unique formation and excellent teaching, we do offer the best materials. Our researchers can make use of very good working conditions and outstanding facilities; they receive adequate grants, are supported by an effective administration and, above all, are surrounded by a very colourful and stimulating academic community.

What range of research activities does the EUI cover? To what extent is a European perspective encouraged?

As indicated in my previous explanations, the European perspective is central to our Institute. Regarding our aims, our logic, our setup and our functioning, the European perspective and a European identity are dominating elements of the Institute. The EUI is probably one of the only existing places where there is no single dominant national culture and tradition. It is a broad mix of different cultural, academic, linguistic and personal elements, and by this it is a reflection of Europe.

As to the research activities covered, we are active in the most important fields and issues related to the process of European integration that are covered by our four departments – this brings us as close as possible to the demand of our founding Convention to conduct research on the major issues confronting contemporary European society.

How important has a collaborative approach proved to be for the EUI?

Collaborative working and thinking are very important for the EUI, its members and its research. This concerns collaboration across national boundaries as well as across disciplines. Overall, however, we can say that the EUI is a collaborative node in a European network of former professors, alumni, fellows and visitors.

For all institutions of higher academic research, a collaborative approach is the precondition for success and excellence. And particularly at the EUI, we are very happy about the European and global network our research activities rely on and about various partnerships and good relationships with universities and research centres around the globe.

In terms of the ‘economy’ element of your research remit: how has your area been affected by the economic downturn? How important do you think scientific research is in terms of aiding the European economic recovery?

Of course we perceive the consequences of the economic crisis in several ways, but fortunately it has had no direct impact on our budget as yet. I do believe that this is related to the fact that there is always money to be found for good academic research. Rightly so, because in times of economic crisis scientific research and above all the social sciences can play an important role in analysing the economic crisis and discussing and developing solutions to the crisis and its consequences. Apart from this short-term concern, higher education and scientific research are central elements in preparing our societies for the challenges of the future. The matter of education is of crucial importance for the future of the EU, and all policies dealing with future economic growth and social cohesion need to have the topic high on the agenda.

Could you single out any specific achievements from the last year from your perspective?

In the last year, we have established a new Global Governance Programme (GGP), which aims at promoting the European mark in shaping the developing global order and in debating how the proper institutional arrangements for global governance should look. Furthermore, our Florence School of Regulation (FSR), the European Union Democracy Observatory (EUDO), and our research activities in the area of migration, developed very successfully. In addition, we obtained excellent results in our doctoral training, which serves ever more as a model for European activities of this kind.

What do you consider to be the most apparent and pressing EU policy issues of 2011?

Of course the current crisis of the eurozone, as well as the related broader difficulties of the European integration process, are crucial questions that will dominate the research we conduct in 2011. This means that we will enhance our research activities focusing on the European economic and monetary union. To do so, we are creating a Chair in honour of Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, and a study programme on monetary union and the role the single currency plays in the global economy. We are also developing a European School of Government, offering more topically-orientated advanced degrees and executive training in the research areas in which we are particularly strong.

Is there any other aspect of the EUI’s work that you would like to highlight?

I think it is worthwhile to underline again the unique character of the EUI and the fact that we serve as role model for many other PhD schools in Europe. At the EUI there is no dominant national approach; our work goes beyond national paradigms of research traditions and intellectual conceptualisations. This inter-cultural and interdisciplinary work creates an atmosphere where new ideas are developed more easily, and novel methods in research and teaching can build up. In summary, all this enables the EUI to develop a truly new academic approach, to change social sciences and to produce a unique brand of truly European academics.

www.eui.eu

Innovation has been seized on by many as a ‘new source of growth’ as we begin to emerge from the economic crisis. Do you think this is the case and could you explain how?

Innovation is central to the economy and, in many countries, firms invest as much in intangible assets that support innovation, such as software development and training, as they do in physical capital, such as equipment. The importance of innovation as a driver of growth was recognised in many of the stimulus packages launched to offset the impact of the crisis. As countries withdraw some of the stimulus, cuts should be avoided in investments such as education, innovation infrastructure and research that support long-term growth. While a potential source of short-term fiscal relief, cuts in these areas will be costly in the long term. These investments are accumulative and ‘stop-and-go’ policies drastically affect their efficiency and effectiveness. In particular, investments in R&D directed towards social challenges should be protected, because these investments can generate a double dividend of general economic growth through spillovers while also addressing social issues not yet served by the market place.

Further to this, do you think innovation can thrive in spite of the looming budget cuts aimed at reducing debt?

Innovation is not simply about spending money. There is considerable scope in many countries to improve the efficiency of government policies that support innovation and innovate in the delivery of public services. Policies that support innovation could be simplified and rationalised in many countries. In others, reforms of education and training systems and public research institutions, aimed at improving excellence and efficiency, can help increase the returns from public investment. Likewise, the removal of regulatory barriers to innovation and entrepreneurship, including administrative regulations, as well pro-growth tax reforms, can do much to strengthen innovation and growth. None of these measures necessarily require large, new expenditures, but collectively they can have a demonstrable impact on performance.

What is your opinion on the state of innovation in Europe?

The EU as a region is strong on science but generally weak on innovation – that is, the commercialisation of new ideas into products that generate new firms and industries which, in turn, lead to structural change improving economic performance and social welfare.

Through numerous commissions, high-level groups and summits, this problem is well-known and documented by EU policy makers. But the challenge to make the EU ‘the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world’, as set out in the Lisbon Agenda in 2000, still remains. The root problem is that innovation policy in Europe is still fragmented, which limits Europe from achieving its potential.

Will boosting R&D solve the problem?

The focus should be less on achieving a certain R&D intensity (eg. 3 per cent of GDP) and more on achieving a critical, absolute level of research which is difficult to obtain if fragmented. In the U.S., California alone conducts 21 per cent of the national total, or about US $77 billion – more than Germany and about twice as much as the UK. As a consequence, innovators with good ideas frequently leave Europe for the U.S. where they can perfect their ideas, translate them into innovations and launch their products to a single market of 300 million people.

As the EU continues to lag behind the U.S., new players like China, India and Brazil have emerged. Their innovation systems are quickly evolving and growing, and could achieve ‘scale’ prior to the EU. Simply put, the EU has most of the right elements of a successful innovation system that will drive growth, but it is essential that these be joined-up across the Union.

The European Commission website states that Innovation policy is about ‘helping companies to perform better and contributing to wider social objectives such as growth, jobs and sustainability’. Do you think there is more that EU policy makers could do to support innovation?

A strong strategy for innovation, like the ‘Innovation Union’, is critical for the EU – as long as it is accompanied by concrete actions. Achievement of a real internal market, and the competitive forces that come with it, is crucial to the stronger innovation performance of all EU countries. There is a key role for policy at the EU level in integrating the EU market further, developing joint actions such as joint research, seizing economies of scale and scope, and supporting a strong growth and innovation agenda through the EU budget. Given the subsidiarity principle, innovation policies are a shared competence and actions at national and EU levels will need to go hand-in-hand.

In light of the last question, could you outline what you consider the priority areas for action?

First, universities, colleges and vocational training centres have to be recognised as essential nodes in the innovation system. Their role is to both produce and attract the human capital needed for innovation, as well as to act as essential bridges between players: businesses, governments and academia – in broader and more open systems of innovation. The major challenge is to recognise the role of universities in the innovation enterprise rather than view them, as is all too commonly the case, simply as providers of public goods. This requires granting universities more independence, imbuing both greater competition and an entrepreneurial spirit. It also means that Europe-wide, a few institutions should become the focus of a concerted effort of upgrade so that they can become, or remain, world-class centres for research excellence. This will require hard choices and perhaps consolidating existing universities.

The second is entrepreneurship. Europe’s lagging R&D expenditures as a share of GDP is, to a large degree, a reflection of an industrial structure which is oriented towards mature, medium-technology industries like autos and chemicals and lacks the new, dynamic, high-tech sectors of life sciences and ICT. This is because Europe suffers from a lack of young, research-intensive firms who tend to exploit opportunities not taken up by more established companies and are the pioneers that create new industries. A policy environment that fosters the start-up and expansion of new firms is therefore critical. Key elements of this environment include: access to early stage risk financing – Europe needs a continent-wide venture capital market; lower exit and re-entry costs; bankruptcy laws that facilitate the restructuring of ailing businesses, with due regard to risk management and the need to avoid moral hazard; efforts to improve the culture for entrepreneurship, including entrepreneurship education; and strengthening the links with research institutions since many of these new sectors are typically science-based and require access.

Thirdly, transferring knowledge and technology and turning it into value. Within the EU, it remains crucial to agree on a single EU patent and to improve the ways through which knowledge is turned into value.

Another concern is the market for innovative products. Smart regulations, standards, consumer education and taxation can strengthen the role of markets in the innovation process. Using public procurement can also help, especially when government is a large consumer, by privileging innovative goods and services. But establishing a sound rationale for government intervention is essential. Well-designed demand-side policies can be less expensive than direct support measures and are not directed at specific firms, but reward innovation and efficiency.

Measuring innovation is a challenging task, yet vital to Europe’s economy and policy making. What is the research agenda for measuring innovation?

The OECD is known for its policy-relevant indicators and has 50 years’ worth of experience developing indicators of innovative behaviour. Once a decade, we convene a ‘blue sky’ exercise where we ask the world’s experts to step back and, with a clean slate, identify a roadmap for the future development of new indicators.

Much more work needs to be done. Current innovation indicators are too focused on the inputs of the innovation process rather than on its outcomes, and aggregate numbers or indices do not adequately reflect the diversity of innovation actors and processes, and the links among them. The OECD and the research community have worked to develop a new set of indicators, to explore a notion of innovation that goes beyond R&D and to ascertain its impact on economic and social performance. This is only a start and needs to be followed up with the implementation of a measurement agenda for innovation.

www.oecd.org

Firstly, what is the mission of the International Coordinating Committee, and how does it relate to the main Council?

The Research Council of Norway has four divisions, with each appointing a director to be their representative in the International Coordinating Committee. The Head of the International Office is also represented. The International Coordinating Committee meets every two weeks. All questions dealing with international cooperation of any kind, when relevant for more than one division, have to be discussed by the International Coordinating Committee. The Committee gives its recommendations and they are presented, by the leader, in the weekly Board of directors (head of divisions) meeting. The International Coordinating Committee is also responsible for the international budget proposal and the yearly reporting of international activities for the Research Council. The Committee establishes task forces and working groups when necessary. This year a task force is supervising and coordinating the implementation of our new international strategy.

What opportunity has your position afforded in terms of improving Norwegian research?

Norway contributes less than 1 per cent of the creation of new knowledge in the world. Increased international cooperation will facilitate Norway’s efforts to address global challenges, enhance quality and capacity in the Norwegian research sector, increase national access to the international knowledge pool, strengthen industrial competitiveness and promote Norway as a cutting-edge research and innovation nation in specific areas. The Committee’s main task last year was to develop an international strategy based on these claims. This year our responsibility is to actually implement all the intentions put on paper. The main change we implemented is that we no longer have international cooperations as separate activities with separate budgets. We clearly state that all activities must include clearly defined objectives and plans for international cooperation. Having an International Coordinating Committee gives a constant international focus across all divisions and also in the Board of Directors.

You are also the Director of the Department for Knowledge-based Bioeconomy. What does your role involve?

The role involves being responsible for all programmes covering agriculture, food, forestry (bioeconomy related issues), but also the biotechnology area outside of the bioeconomy concept. I also represent Norway in the Standing Committee on Agricultural Reasearch (SCAR), the Knowledge Based BioEconomy net (KBBEnet) and the Nordic Joint  Committee on Food and Agricultural Research. The Research Council of Norway is financed by 16 ministries. Each has a director within the Research Council and I am responsible for all contact with the Ministry for Food and Agriculture. In being responsible for international activities, the role also involves being the high-level representative (HLG) in Eureka, whilst also taking part in the European Network of Innovation Agencies (TAFTIE).

Alongside all the aforementioned activities, we handle international activities on behalf of the Research Council – including the international dimension of our innovation policy – together with instruments such as preparatory awards for international projects.

What success has the Knowledge-based Bioeconomy Department had on the development of Norway’s industrial activities?

All programmes offer ‘user-driven projects’. The contract partner in these projects is the industry itself and the focus is both on research and innovation. The Department is also trying to stimulate international innovation projects across the Division for Innovation via Eureka (Eurostars, individual projects and cluster projects) and other forms of international cooperation.

As in the EU, there is an increasing focus on commercialisation from research and innovation in general. And we agree that more money should be directed towards innovation. All our thematic programmes have increased their use of user-driven projects. I would like to point out Eurostars in particular as an example of a programme being close to the market and focusing on innovation. Norwegian industry finds this programme very attractive and easy to use. International cooperation offered through projects in Eurostars not only give access to suppliers or excellent research bodies beyond our borders; it also offers indirect access to markets through network building.

In what direction is the Nature-based Industry (Natur og næring) programme moving? How does Norway compare with other Nordic countries in its promotion of ecosystem sustainability?

The programme is about to be merged with the Food programme involving a process for change. The reason for this is that we want to launch a new programme within the concept of the Bioeconomy. This Bioeconomy concept takes into consideration all sources of biomass and its application, and also includes a strong emphasis on sustainability. We have just started the process of involving stakeholders in this new approach and hope to be able to give a positive answer to this question at the end of this process.

How are you benefiting from collaboration with other funding organisations?

Both through our membership in TAFTIE and through Eureka we regularly meet other organisations to discuss best practice and policy issues. This is of great importance to us, since we put emphasis on both learning and a continuous need for change.

Looking ahead, are you positive about Norway’s continuing research success?

If we are able to keep changing according to the world around us, continue to increase our efforts towards more innovation from research, and maintain our increased emphasis on international cooperation, I think yes! Norway needs new global industry and fast growing SMEs with global markets in order to develop after the ‘oil era’. In order to succeed in a knowledge-based society we will have to think smart, prioritise our efforts and cooperate with others who are better than us.

www.forskningsradet.no

Given recent advances in technology, the many specialised fields of science appear to be ever more multidisciplinary in nature. How has COST assisted in mediating between different scientific disciplines?

It is COST’s priority to foster an open approach that links all disciplines. COST is largely problem-orientated, it is a natural arena for interdisciplinarity and indeed we see a high degree of inter- and multidisciplinarity in many of our Actions across all domains in general.

COST offers researchers the opportunity to apply for funding for networking of research, across disciplines that are not usually interlinked. We had observed that scientists still suffer from many barriers and ‘domain dogmatism’ which we challenged and hoped to help overcome by establishing a specific trans-disciplinary domain. These proposals receive an unbiased evaluation by experts from our scientific domains, and the panel is enlarged with experts from other disciplines as required.

A vision for the future Innovation Union, however, could be to go a step further and potentially abandon the concept of scientific domains altogether. Proposals would then always be assessed by a transdisciplinary panel based on the individual evaluation of external experts from the required scientific and technological areas.

I believe that this vision would help Europe strive for excellence by removing barriers between disciplines, economic sectors, etc. Experience shows that many of the best solutions to difficult problems arise from the most unexpected source.

Are you expecting a major progression in any particular aspects of your strategy and its outcome in the next couple of years?

Networking was, is and will continue to be a cornerstone of the European Research Area (ERA). In the next two years, we will make the output of our Actions visible and increase management efficiency.

COST is a catalyst for success. Networking advances science and we currently network more than 30,000 researchers in over 250 COST Actions around the world. In new areas of science, where comparatively few teams operate, sharing ideas is vital to create a sense of community and join efforts to avoid lost time. COST Actions also work for society: helping the environment; setting standards; developing new technologies; and supporting industry.

We often refer to some of COST’s well-known past successes, such as its role in the pre-normalisation work for the GSM standard and the creation of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting. What these examples show clearly is that major impacts often become visible over a significant period of time which may extend beyond the four-year period of a COST Action.

It is worth highlighting some of the recent or potential successes of our COST Actions to give an idea of how we provide a platform for very different needs expressed by the scientific community.

• Action METEAU worked to develop and spread good practice in terms of control of the presence of metals in drinking water. The Action had a policy impact in the context of the revision of the European Union Drinking Water Directive (Council Directive 98/83/EC) as well as on the implementation of a Protocol prepared by the World Health Organization (Protocol on Water and Health). The Action also published a series of Best Practice Guides and its results are being disseminated via the International Water Association

• An ongoing Action looks at social and policy factors, migrants’ state of health, and improvements in service delivery. The research team presented a paper, ‘Improving Harmony, Management and Social Support in Mediterranean Migration for Better Development and a Better Life’, to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean in Fez in June 2008. Furthermore, Action participants act as advisors to international organisations such as the Council of Europe or the World Health Organization as well as at national level. These are typical ways of transferring research results from the humanities and social sciences

• In November 2010, the European Parliament adopted a resolution in which it asked the European Commission to increase support to the beekeeping industry when the Common Agricultural Policy is next revamped in 2013. The world’s largest network to look at the ‘Prevention of Bee Colony loss’ is COST Action COLOSS. This Action is currently developing novel, standardised honeybee monitoring, sampling and early diagnosis. The immediate effect will be that we will better understand honeybee mortality and possibly be able to avoid the negative impact this has on our economy. In the longer term, this Action’s standardisation work could feed into international standards as well

• Finally, the Action called TIMELY is a very good example of how COST is conducive to the creation of new interdisciplinary communities around important breakthrough topics even when applications are not yet in sight. This Action is one of the world’s first attempts to form an interdisciplinary research community to study time perception. Previous studies on time perception were mono-disciplinary, therefore the first challenge faced by the Action was to develop a common language to encourage neuroscientists, philosophers, psychologists, musicologists and other scientists to communicate

These examples are just some of the ways in which we measure the success of the COST support for networking activities. Another aspect of how COST Actions occupy a unique place in the innovation cycle is, for example, the fact that some Actions harmonise methodologies and/or tools allowing for S&T studies that would otherwise not be possible at a national level.

How do you see COST evolving in the next decade? Are there any particular aspects, such as the development of early stage researchers (ESRs), that you wish to focus on, or will you be looking to include more nations and industrial partners?

COST will develop as the most efficient global tool for validating and accelerating the cultural changes needed for innovation which have been prompted by the emergence of new transitions in S&T. It will do so by allowing new scientific communities to interact, by bridging scientific output to policy makers, governments and regulatory bodies and, finally, by providing a breeding ground for exploratory and pre-competitive innovation that also involves SMEs.

ESR development is at the heart of COST’s mission because our objective is to anticipate and encourage the emergence of new professions (for instance, interfaces between researchers and engineers or among engineers and producers); new tools to educate future generations of ESRs; and new techniques for knowledge dissemination.

In fact, COST is based on the understanding of a very simple concept: that knowledge creation, knowledge accumulation, knowledge diffusion and knowledge application are all social – not solitary – endeavours. COST is about creating communities of passionate people around S&T topics, and in nurturing these communities, knowledge is born.

COST will profit from the activities of its Actions that gather the most brilliant new ideas from scientists at a global level, and will be able to scan for early weak signals of possible new trends in S&T. We will favour high-risk innovative ideas and encourage the development of scientific communities with an open scientific culture.

The innovative industry will be welcoming with the same openness we currently apply. We intend to pay specific attention to start-ups that emerge from or around academia and that are of immediate benefit to the most innovative frontrunners.

Has the project encountered any political obstacles or difficulties due to the international character of COST or is there a unified acceptance and desire to back the project?

There is clear support for the programme and the added value of networking funds it provides. In fact, the European Commission granted COST €30 million of extra funds until the end of the Seventh Framework Programme, bringing our total budget for the entire period up to 240 million. What better testimony is there to COST’s curiosity-driven, bottom-up approach?

Experience has taught us that COST has always taken troublesome times in its stride and that is thanks to the fact that it delivers successful intergovernmental cooperation. It is well accepted that scientific and technological cooperation can significantly improve international relations. And with that in mind, we can say that COST has been a stepping stone for many nations in Europe, as it is for others around the world.

www.cost.eu