To mark the end of the project and to present its results, the INESS Final Conference will be held at the UIC in Paris on 3 February 2012.

The programme of the free, one-day conference will consist of:

• Morning session – presentations on projects results and lessons learned
• Afternoon session – marketplace and breakout sessions where each work-stream will demonstrate the results, tools and methods used and discuss specific topics

The main objective of INESS is to define and develop specifications for a new generation of interlocking systems, and apply methods and tools capable of reducing LCC and enhancing the standardisation process. In the context of current European policy, it is hereby expected to foster signalling equipment migrations and support the rollout of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS).

The European Commission and the European railway associations, together with the railway supply industry, are working closely together to define an efficient migration strategy for ERTMS.  INESS will support the development of a new generation of interlocking systems with optimal harmonised design and interfaces towards adjacent systems such as the European Train Control System (ETCS) Radio Block Centre and outdoor equipment, especially connecting to ETCS.

Who you will meet:

The Conference will be of interest to those working in the field of railway standardisation and specification work, not only in the official standardisation bodies but also in the various sectoral organisations who are increasingly involved in this subject. The INESS project is producing results which should be of significant interest to all those involved in the very important field of railway standardisation.

Benefits of Attending:

Delegates will

• Understand project results and lessons learned
• Learn INESS advantages for the Railways and INESS advantages for the Industry
• Discuss in detail specific topics
• Benefit from networking opportunities with peers and vendors

The Conference is open to all EU participants. The event will be held in English.

For more information about INESS project, the conference and registration to the conference, please contact Maria Lafont (lafont@uic.org), or visit the dedicated website at www.iness.eu/spip.php?article7.

Registration has started for the free INtegrated European Signalling System (INESS) Training Programme, 7-9 March 2012

The INESS training programme will provide:

• Explanations on benefits of a common method for describing functionalities to the railway asset managers
• Dissemination about the common kernel and explanations regarding the advantages for infrastructure managers, industry partners and safety authorities
• Explanations of the advantages of using the common kernel in order to convince standardisation bodies to work towards a European standard
• A presentation about the Interlocking-RBC interface FFFIS, focusing on the benefits of standard interfaces
• A demonstration of the advantages of using the INESS architecture/ interface specifications
• A demonstration of the process towards a proposal for a standardised system architecture to standard-setting and regulatory bodies, safety authorities and the European Railway Agency
• A presentation about the harmonised testing and commissioning of interlockings

Who you will meet :

• Railway Infrastructure Managers – Management & Engeneering level
• Suppliers – Management & Engeneering level
• Railway operators
• Industry
• Data managers and Project managers
• Procurement department from the European Railways
• Business development and Financial department from the European industry

This training programme will be held in Paris at UIC Headquarters

Included :

• Lunches and coffee breaks during working sessions
• Documentation package in English
• 1 social event (dinner) on 7 March 2012

Further information and registration details can be found via www.iness.eu/spip.php?article13.

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/

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/

With 4.5 million kilometres of road, rail and inland waterways, Europe boasts a vast and impressive transport infrastructure which generates millions of jobs and delivers notable economic benefits across the continent. In this interview exclusive, András Siegler spells out his vision of how innovative transport research can spearhead a greener, safer and smarter society

With transport playing such an important role in the European economy, how do you deal with problems of sustainability, for example, those related to consumption of non-renewable fuels and greenhouse gas emissions?

In 2007, European leaders agreed on the so-called 20-20-20 goals to be achieved by the year 2020: reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent, using renewable resources for 20 per cent of Europe’s energy needs, and reducing primary energy needs by 20 per cent.

Since transport accounts for almost one third of the EU’s energy consumption, this is definitely an important theme for us. Supporting research on green transport is a priority of Europe’s research agenda under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). One way to improve sustainability is by looking at alternatives to fossil fuels. We are funding a lot of research into developing suitable alternative fuels. Many projects are also improving engine technologies so that we can actually start using them.

An important branch of research into sustainability focuses on technologies that reduce the emission of CO2 and harmful NOx gases. There are also collaborative projects between European industry and universities that are moving away from traditional combustion engines altogether. Many of these are conducted as part of the Clean Sky Joint Initiative (aimed at greener aviation) and the European Green Cars Public-Private Partnership. Right now, the battery of an electric car can amount to half the price of an electric vehicle. Just imagine how much more affordable green cars could be with more standardisation and technological improvements!

In what way do you encourage competitiveness within the EU transport research framework?

If Europe manages to be a forerunner in technologies of the future – and sustainable propulsion is definitely one of them – we will reap the fruits for decades to come. The great thing about improving sustainability is that it increases the quality of life of our citizens on the one hand, while at the same time making travelling and transportation of goods cheaper by saving petrol and kerosene. Don’t forget that with the price of oil rising from less than 30 U.S. dollars a barrel in 2000 to more than 60 in 2010, fuel-efficient vehicles and vessels are increasingly attractive to buyers worldwide.

Of course, there are more ways to be competitive, like improving cost-efficiency. Think about building an aeroplane. Producing the large titanium structures needed for the parts poses challenges that drive up the price. So we look into ways to cut back costs, for example, by reducing the amount of raw material that is wasted during production.

The transport sector traditionally invests a lot in R&D. What does European funding add?

We also aim to build a European Innovation Union in which we collaborate across borders and sectors to stay competitive in a changing world. Transport is not just about revenue, it’s also about getting somewhere. Our destination is a greener, safer and smarter society. We have the comparative luxury of being able to support projects which, while targeting a new, innovative product or service, also have a large social component, or that require a long start-up period, or a high level of cooperation and standardisation between sectors or competitors.

You mention a ‘social component’. Does that include promoting seamless transport services to help social inclusion?

In improving urban mobility we focus in part on social inclusion by making public transport affordable and accessible to everyone, not just the average citizen. We fund a number of research projects that work on establishing methodologies for measuring accessibility and identifying and exchanging best practices across countries. After all, accessibility can never be improved if we do not know whether something is accessible in the first place.

Europe also pushes transport industry and researchers beyond short-term interests through the standardisation of charging stations for electric vehicles. No single manufacturer will take the risk of introducing vehicles using a system that doesn’t catch on in most of Europe. I, for one, would not buy a car that cannot be charged easily once I cross the border! By supplying European funds, we encourage partners to get together and agree on common equipment.

Is your programme only concerned with pan-European collaboration?

Not at all. Research and technology is a perfect example of what we can achieve by looking at capacities rather than nationalities. Take one of our research projects in aeronautics, exploring ways to bring down the cost of producing aircraft. It’s interdisciplinary, with about 60 partners from different technological sectors, and they come from in and outside the EU-27: from Russia and Turkey, to Italy and France.

There are many partner countries beyond the EU who can participate in FP7. Last year we started common programmes in aeronautics research with China and Russia. The fact that they’re joint programmes means that we all contribute researchers and invest a similar amount of money. Sharing facilities and knowledge is beneficial to everyone involved; it generates business opportunities and pushes research forward.

Generally speaking, teaming up partners is one of the notable characteristics and strengths of European research funding. We’re working hard to break down barriers between research and retail, between industry and academia, and between different technological fields. Within Europe, we try to make sure that researchers in different countries complement rather than duplicate each other’s work. A Europe in which all of these barriers have been torn down would be a true Innovation Union, and the only way to sustainable growth.

Talking about an Innovation Union, how does your Directorate help further Europe’s place in world-leading innovation?

Innovation is a very broad concept. It encompasses ways of working as much as ways of producing. One thing that cannot be ignored is that successful innovation takes changing circumstances and challenges as a starting point and responds to them in such a way that something new can be sold profitably.

In the 21st Century we’re faced with challenges such as climate change, an ageing population and resource dependency. All of these need a timely response. We do not want to be the last ones driving around in old-fashioned gasoline fuelled cars come the time when oil is barely affordable. Instead, we should attempt to be the first ones to sell buses that are easily accessible to elderly people.

The Green Cars Initiative was included in EU President Barroso’s economic recovery plan for Europe, not least because our sector is one where societal challenges, technological developments and market success are closely linked.

What plans do you have for the future?

Transport is a huge sector, employing almost 9 million people directly – more than the total population of Austria and just a little less than the population of Hungary. So if there’s any domain where a focus on innovation and research is going to help further Europe’s position in the world, it is transport.

We continue to support innovative research for greener, safer and smarter transport in Europe. Industry and researchers can regularly apply to calls for research proposals to receive funding for their research and development efforts. I would like to stress that these calls are not only open to big, private parties; small and medium sized companies often have very good ideas and we welcome them to submit these. For those who would like to know everything about participating in our programme, we are organising our annual Infodays in Brussels in July.

We also see it as our task to facilitate cooperation. So we will continue to organise brokerage events where potential research partners can exchange ideas. And we do not want to keep the outcomes of the fascinating research to ourselves: anyone who is interested in seeing some of the results is invited to come and meet us at the events where we will be participating. A very interesting event is the Aerodays in Madrid (30 March-1 April 2011), where we shall discuss the future of air transport. Later this year, we will be present at transport-related conferences and events throughout Europe.

You can always check the up-to-date calendar and news on our website. In the end, any true innovation will have to come from the sector. We expect a lot; our role is to create the best possible circumstances.

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

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

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

What is EMEC’s mission and how is it unique in what it seeks to deliver?

EMEC represents the interests of more than 1,500 European companies through 14 National Associations, in 13 countries. Many of these companies are international players providing equipment and services to shipyards all over the world.

Direct employment in the marine equipment sector is estimated at more than 287,000 whilst indirect employment amounts to about 436,000. The average yearly turnover of the EMEC member companies was estimated at around €42 billion in 2008.

One of the topics we consider unique and place an emphasis on within our association is greener, safer and innovative technology – safety is, by tradition, a key added value that the marine equipment industry delivers to the maritime community. As new and urgent issues emerge, such as climate change and energy efficiency, safety shall be maintained and developed as one of the cornerstones of EMEC’s policy. It also permeates each and every aspect of the activity of the association.

The role of marine equipment suppliers in the protection of the environment, the fight against climate change and promotion of clean and energy-efficient technology has been clearly promoted by EMEC, and European equipment suppliers understand and acknowledge their role as the main pacemaker for the development of greener maritime technology.

Does EMEC currently see the economic climate as difficult for the European marine equipment manufacturers?

The financial and economic crisis looks far from being over. Its potential impact on the shipbuilding industry has already been explored; activities are expected to progressively slow down in the coming years, as new orders decrease. Furthermore, in the light of the recent Greek crisis and developments in other EU countries, a new assessment of the economic environment should be made. Yet, equipment suppliers see not only the threats emerging from the crisis, but also the opportunity that opened for the shipbuilding industry to tackle structural issues, such as overcapacity. Likewise, the decrease in new buildings may lead to the development of other strategically-relevant markets, such as maintenance and repair and, as environmental targets become more and more important, retrofitting. In any event, a prompt reaction from European suppliers is called for to maintain and increase their competitiveness against a difficult economic climate.

European marine equipment suppliers consider themselves to be technology leaders. In what areas do you see the Europeans ahead of the field?

Marine equipment manufacturers are considering with ever increasing attention the environmental aspects and sustainability of their activities, against a backdrop of financial change and the potential opportunities that this could create.

Talent, know-how, leadership and the capacity to develop economically and environmentally-sustainable products are important tools to cope with current and future challenges, and to meet society’s expectations.

The European marine equipment manufacturers are still far ahead in their field as technology integrators (bridge systems, safety systems, propulsion systems, etc.). By adopting a holistic approach when looking at a ship, technology can be sophistically integrated providing increased efficiency and therefore green credentials to a vessel.

Among the challenges lying ahead, greening of transport is one of particular relevance for the industry. The technological developments of ‘green’ marine equipment are already far advanced to meet the targets set by regulators and it is here that we can consider ourselves as technology leader. However, let us not rest on our laurels because the industry can still and will go further to mitigate the impact of shipping on the environment.

The maritime network is responsible for the transportation of more than 90 per cent of global trade. From all points of view, it is one of the most efficient transport networks available. Yet, there is still significant potential for further improvement, with major benefits to society at large. The European maritime equipment manufacturers are aware of the role they can and do play in the development of greener maritime technology, and aim to make it stronger.

If technology already in existence could be integrated in today’s ships they could become 15-20 per cent greener and cleaner. With further demonstration of new technology, an increase of 33 per cent in eco-friendliness could be achieved in the not too distant future.

On the issue of the environment how has EMEC assured the European Commission?

EMEC is in favour of a coherent maritime industry and transport policy which rightfully fulfils societal expectations and environmental needs. EMEC appreciates that there are challenges which need to be overcome in this regard and are therefore ready to play an active role in providing solutions.

It is EMEC’s view that public intervention in the market, should it come from the EU or Member States, should foster durable and structural improvements in the way European industry operates and competes in the global arena, making it able to meet widely-shared policy goals.

A combination of legislative-driven demand and market-driven demand is important for public intervention. The legislative as well as market demand approach needs to mix public interest with easier access to state and EU resources. With this in mind, EMEC expects that all policies aimed at facilitating access to resources for research, development and innovation, achieving better ships performances (retrofitting), and developing and making available new technologies (particularly green technologies) will be pursued through a constant dialogue with various European Commission Services.

In what areas do you expect to see a further tightening of environmental and safety regulations, which will lead to innovation?

The main area where a further tightening of environmental and safety regulations will likely be seen is in relation to emissions – Sox, NOx and CO2. This will ultimately lead to the smart operation of ships and decision support. The global economy will generate more demand which will require well-managed and optimised supply systems, integrated infrastructure on- and offshore, route optimisation and the retrofitting of green technologies on board existing vessels – all promoting innovation.

Marine equipment suppliers have become increasingly involved in the offshore sector since the boom in deep sea oil exploration and wind power plants at sea. What developments have to be prioritised?

Safety is something which always has to come first. The deeper you go the safer the technology has to be in order to mitigate the threat of manmade disasters. The spill in the Gulf of Mexico can teach the global maritime community a lesson, helping them to build upon mistakes and ensure that the technology, process and practices for everybody involved is working at its optimum. It is also important to promote the standardisation of equipment which will allow it to be used on any ship and in any situation regardless of who built it.

What place does dissemination have in enhancing the networking and visibility of Europe’s marine equipment industry?

Dissemination plays a very valuable role within our association, enhancing the networking and visibility of the industry. Having 14 National Association members across 13 countries allows the results of European political and research activities/initiatives to be filtered down to national and regional levels. In order to achieve this filter effect the mediums of internet, publications and tailored events have been successfully harnessed.

With regard to Green Technologies, EMEC hosts a yearly Green Ship Technology Cocktail, gathering together industry representatives in order to discuss the current industry ‘green technology’ developments in a relaxed setting. This year the Commissioner for Environment Janez Potocnik attended the event and spoke on behalf of the European Commission about shipping-related initiatives being taken in his designated field.

What Emerging Market Opportunities do you see in the Near Future?

Emerging markets such as offshore wind energy and ocean energy dictate new demand and we European marine equipment suppliers have a technologically strong position to meet these. In order to remain world leaders and dominate these new fields we must invest in know-how. Competitors will always try and copy something which is successful and therefore the protection of intellectual property rights is also key to ensuring that market shifts do not take place and disadvantage Europe, making them victims of their own success.

We must focus on the opportunities, face the future and safeguard knowledge for a greener, safer and more innovative industry for this decade and beyond.

www.emec.eu

To begin, could you outline the main aims of the TRKC?

The main aim of the TRKC is to support the building of the European Research Area in transport. To this end, the TRKC has, since 1998, provided structured and timely access to both detailed and summary information on European, national and international transport research activities and their results.

TRKC is also supporting the transport policy decision-making processes at European and national levels by providing sound analysis of research results. This is being done against a thematic structure as well as emerging policy priorities.

Why is this facility so important and what makes it unique?

Information about transport research is extremely scattered. For transport research funded at European level, there are a range of transport research databases and websites, some focusing on specific topics while others are national and therefore often in a language other than English.

TRKC brings together all this information on programmes and projects. This enables the user to visit one single website to find all relevant information, instead of clicking his/her way through a number of different sites, with different search functionalities, or in languages he/she does not comprehend.

We provide in-depth analysis of research findings. In 2002 we developed a thematic structure of 30 transport themes in four categories. These constitute also our browsing keywords. Each project entry is tagged with up to five of these themes. Once results become available for a project, we analyse how the results contribute to each of the project tags. These implications at project level form the input into the Thematic Research Summaries, which we publish on the portal for each of the 30 themes, and update at regular intervals to keep abreast with new research results. These Summaries provide our users will a full insight into the state-of-the art of research in the given theme.

In addition, TRKC addresses emerging policy priorities through our Policy Brochures. These summarise key analytical findings to enable policy makers to base their decisions on robust research information.

How wide-ranging are the transport research projects for which you provide overviews?

TRKC gives access to over 7,000 research projects, which are split into some 2,000 EU and 5,000 nationally and internationally funded projects. Well over 1,000 projects feature the research results, and for many projects the final project report is also available. Where results are available, TRKC conducts summaries and looks at the technical and policy implications on a case-by-case basis.

Of course, with our 7,000 projects we do not cover every single one that is ongoing or has been recently completed in the ERA – that would be far too an ambitious goal. However, we do provide complete coverage of all FP-funded transport projects since FP4, as well as comprehensive coverage of other EU-funded projects, nationally funded projects from the ERA Member States’ main research programmes or funding streams, as well as a small compilation of key internationally or multilaterally funded projects. Most recently, TRKC has entered into a cooperation with the U.S. Transportation Research Board, and has started featuring American research projects as well.

In the context of the European Research Area, an important aspect regarding nationally-funded transport research is the language barrier. For instance, how could a researcher or policy maker from Greece access information on Finnish research, when the information is only published in Finnish?

With a collection of some 300 national programme profiles, we play an important role in building the foundations of the ERA. Any researcher or policy maker can easily access valuable information from activities going on in other Member States. Where TRKC provides only basic project information in English, the interested TRKC user will still be able to fi nd the project through our browsing functions, and then look deeper into the project with translation tools such as Google Translate. Thus, the user can find valuable information which otherwise would not have been available to him/her.

You allow researchers to share their experiences with others by submitting project reports, relevant web links and event announcements. What has this led to and do you hope to expand this area of the portal?

We have always believed that a research project coordinator is the person best placed to provide the information about his/her project, be it at the beginning of the project or the end. Therefore, we have elaborated the so-called European Transport Research Reporting Scheme, which allows each external person, be it a programme manager, a project coordinator, or the like, to submit information to the TRKC, either through a protected extranet, or simply via email. This Reporting Scheme was developed in 2002 and validated by the Commission and the Member States, with the hope that it would become part of research contracts. This would have created an obligation for project coordinators of all publicly-funded research projects to submit their project data to the TRKC database. Unfortunately, this has not yet become an obligation, and the voluntary contributions from project coordinators have remained far behind our expectations.

How helpful have your users found the compendium of European and national research funding mechanisms? How has it helped researchers with their funding applications?

The compendium, when it was first published in 2004, was the first of its kind, bringing together information about funding institutions and funding mechanisms in all ERA countries. This has been very much appreciated, not least by the governments of the ERA countries themselves. Today, after many updates, our users still find the information in the compendium very valuable. It provides condensed, unique information about the organisation of transport research funding.

How do you see the TRKC evolving in the mid-term?

My vision it to develop the TRKC further to enable it to become the European transport research portal, an equivalent to the U.S. Transportation Research Board’s Research in Progress (RiP) and Transport Research Information System (TRIS) databases.

This would require three major developments: first, the data provision needs to become an automatism in order to make it sustainable. That would imply that the European Commission needs to make the provision of project data by project coordinators through the Reporting Scheme a contractual obligation.

Second, the Commission will have to provide a long-term funding and contractual perspective to TRKC. As long as the TRKC is managed through three year contracts, it will be difficult to convince Member States, for instance, to ensure that their national data is provided to TRKC.

Third, in order to be the ultimate and authoritative European portal, other existing databases, for instance those which have a sectoral or thematic focus, should be integrated in one way or the other into TRKC. This would not mean that all data must be in the TRKC database, but that structured links will be built with other databases, allowing searches from the TRKC portal and through the TRKC taxonomy. Collating structured access to the information contained in all European transport databases under one roof would make life for users much easier.

www.transport-research.info

What is the primary concern of the ISE and what conditions brought about its formation?

ISE a platform of European learned societies and scientific organisations, was formed alongside the European Research Council (ERC), when leaders from several major European organisations decided to join forces to lobby for the ERC. These efforts were successful and ISE is now widely recognised for having played an instrumental role during the genesis of the ERC, encouraging the founders of ISE to maintain and develop the platform and its activities.

Science knows no boundaries and scientists are probably the most federalist of all European citizens. At a time when the organisation, structuring, regulation, and funding of research activities are increasingly taking place at a European and even worldwide level, it is necessary to provide a voice for the research community, unified across national boundaries and scientific disciplines, to express their views and advocate their needs. The primary concerns of ISE are to involve scientists in the design of European science policies; to provide a rigorous scientific advice to policy makers; and to be the voice of the scientific community to the greatest extent, not only for assessment but for prospective issues.

Was the ERC creation facilitated by the necessity to improve R&D at a European level?

The advantage of fostering basic science at a European level was recognised very early not only by scientists but also heads of national funding organisations, and politicians such as Helge Sander, the former Danish Minister, who, in 2002, under Danish Presidency of the EU, organised a conference to discuss the need for an ERC. This conference led to the creation of an expert group (ERCEG) that I chaired, whose mission was to explore options for the creation of an ERC.

Through its consultation with the scientific community and its open conferences involving all stakeholders, ISE helped to develop such a concept and to move the boundaries. For others, the support of Federation of the Societies of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (FEBS), European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) and European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) was particularly relevant, with institutions like Euroscience, the European Science Foundation (ESF), the European University Association and CERN, for example, notably contributing to convincing the European Commission, as well as the European Parliament and Council, to respond to the call of the scientific community, as stated in several documents. Initially, the European Commission considered that supporting frontier research through competition schemes was not part of its remit.

Many members from the ERC Scientific Council were closely associated with ISE, and therefore the very successful ERC programmes largely reflect the proposals of the scientific community as advocated by ISE. It is for this reason that investments in infrastructure, innovation and science are more necessary than ever.

What part does multidisciplinary cooperation play in your organisation, and has this allowed ISE to foster research synergy? What variety of disciplines do you combine and how wide-ranging are your members?

At this time of worldwide crisis, when radical changes to global governance are urgently required, not only to prevent irreversible damages, particularly in socially and environmentally crucial aspects, but also to successfully guide sustainable development away from market forces, scientific rigour is more necessary than ever before to aid policy decision-making.

Addressing great societal challenges such as access to health services, nutrition, ageing or climate change can only be done through multidisciplinary efforts. Social sciences, for example, can tackle appropriate policy making, and both expectations of, and impact on, citizens; as such, they are as critical as physical or biological processes. Therefore, ISE aims to promote an integrated vision of science, with its membership including European organisations representative of all communities: chemistry, physics, mathematics, material sciences, life and biomedical sciences, social sciences and education.

How has ISE developed in its aims since its original implementation?

ISE was created by individuals who were the leaders of major organisations such as EMBL, EMBO, FEBS, Euroscience, European Physical Society (EPS) and the ESF. They recognised the value of joining forces to fight for a common objective, creating the ERC. It is necessary to pay tribute to the first President of ISE, Jose Mariano Gago, current Portuguese Minister for Science, Technology and Higher Education and one of the founding fathers of the Lisbon Agenda, who was a great leader in these early days. This group of organisations was rapidly joined by others, which shared its objective, in a loose structure. Here, I should acknowledge and emphasise, as I said before, those who financially support the platform and allowed us to develop our activities, primarily EMBL, EMBO and FEBS.

On the other hand, structuring conditions must be met for basic science to flourish: preparing the next generation of researchers, developing career paths, research infrastructures, mobility, industry-academia collaborations, etc. Concerning all these issues, ISE must speak up. Finally, ISE members are well aware of the social contract between science and society. Scientists must have a vision of science for society, creating much work for ISE, both internally and externally.

It is therefore time to evolve a more sustainable and professional structure, sharing the costs between the members of ISE. This will allow us to scale-up our activities and the number of issues that we can address simultaneously, and this is exactly what we are currently developing.

Is there any particular area of basic science that the ISE sees the need to focus on, and if so, why? What future action will this approach lead to?

We, at ISE, feel a specific responsibility towards the ERC. It is the single most successful development in European science in decades. In July 2009, a panel of independent experts evaluated the ERC; while praising its achievements, they provided recommendations to improve its functioning and delivery mechanisms and insisted on fostering its autonomy. That is exactly what ISE will do, along with our aim of contributing to the establishment and structuring of a real, functioning European Research Area.

By what means are you involving scientists in the design and implementation of European science policies, and how is this advocating strong independent scientific advice in European policy making?

ISE aims to represent the scientific community by gathering representative organisations. Consulting scientists, individually or through workshops and working groups, and expressing their views through papers and open conferences involving all stakeholders, notably the European Institutions (Commission and Parliament), are the primary means of action for ISE.

As the former Director General of UNESCO, how has this experience benefited your current position?

To be able to see the Earth as a whole; to be aware of the immense richness of cultures worldwide, the wisdom of so many people that must invent how to survive everyday; the natural resources of the planet, the beauty and perfection of nature; the necessity of more balanced sharing; and most importantly, to know what is humanity’s hope: the distinctive capacity to think, to create; are parts of the poli-faceted experience of being Director General of the Intellectual Organization of the United Nations. “Unprecedented situations require unprecedented solutions,” wrote Amin Maalouf, and now is the right moment to invent the future and to mobilise civil society out of silence and apathy. The scientific community must be at the forefront of this new beginning.

And finally, is there any other part of ISE’s work that you wish to discuss?

Europe is once more at a turning point. It is in the midst of an existential crisis which will have deep and long-lasting consequences. Two items are on the agenda for the coming years: the financial perspectives – the EU budget – and the next Framework Programme, Horizon 2020.

Politicians everywhere in Europe are claiming, at home and on the European scene, that science and technological development are the only way forward for our economies and societies. However, while adding new missions to the portfolio financed by the EU budget, many major EU Member States want to maintain or even decrease the budget and, at the same time, sanctuarise expenses for the Common Agricultural Policy or Structural and Cohesion funds. Who will be brave enough to speak up about the budget share for science and innovation? It is clear that without R&D, global sustainable development – the only way out of the present situation – will not take place.

As to EU funding for R&D, it is certainly possible to make it more efficient and focused to really contribute to the ERA. The scientific community has its own ideas about it and ISE will certainly aim to make them heard.

www.initiative-science-europe.org