Need for European Scientific Identity
Hi all, I have been reading both the document and the feedback we are providing so far, and I see climate change is mentioned clearly in the document as a factor of change, along with technology (pg. 10), but maybe not as emphasized as it could be. However, what is not there is a mention of science, not once. This may be in part to the following statement regarding the scenarios: "They are not detailed blueprints or policy prescriptions. Likewise, they deliberately make no mention of legal or institutional processes – the form will follow the function." - In this regards, they may see the contribution of science as just part of an institutional process, something I strongly disagree with. Science should be seen as more than a process, and as Renaud put it, more of a powerhouse or key economic driver.
I think a key concept that the MCAA can provide feedback is the importance of a European Scientific Identity, which places science as a central pillar to the future of Europe. In this regards, we see the role of scientific research being important regardless of the five different scenarios. However, under the different scenarios, we can perhaps anticipate what will happen to scientific funding. As such, I have focused mainly on relationship between the impact of policies and particularly the EU Budget effects, to put my own thoughts here, but definitely open to input:
Scenario 1) Carrying On Under this scenario, the expected impact on the EU budget will be to maintain a modernized agenda for the 27 member states. Scientific funding will continue to see gradual growth in the amount of funding available under the proposed FP9 framework and future scientific funding frameworks will continue to take a central part in linking European researchers together. This scenario continues to promote an integrated scientific identity within Europe.
Scenario 2) Nothing but the single market The central part of scenario 2 is that "differences persist or increase in areas such as ... the use of public subsidies." In this scenario, the focus on the single market means that there is less emphasis on a strong scientific research community at a European level. The potential “race to the bottom” could occur where nations hold or decrease national spending on science, placing increasing emphasis to seek European funding for science. This will create an adverse situation which could result in an overburdened European scientific system which would be detrimental to the development of a European Scientific identify.
Scenario 3) Those who want more do more As in “Carrying on”; additional budgets are made available by some Member States for the areas where they decide to do more". The impact of this on the scientific identity is harder to predict, however, with varying levels of contributions to the EU budget, it may be that scientific funding at the European level becomes polarized, where funding is implicitly awarded to those countries with the most contributions to the budget itself. This polarization could significantly affect the development of a strong scientific identity in Europe, segregating a scientific Europe along economic lines.
Scenario 4) Doing less more efficiently In this scenario, "The EU27 steps up its work in fields such as innovation ... It focuses on excellence in R&D and invests in new EU-wide projects to support decarbonisation and digitisation.". This indicates a potential increase in funding within certain scientific domains. However, this also means that there is likely to be a decrease in funding priorities in areas which are regarded a less important. This will change the dimensions of what the European scientific identity would have, potentially alienating areas such as humanities, arts and cultural studies.
Scenario 5) Doing much more together This is the ideal scenario for science. The budget will be "Significantly modernised and increased, backed up by own resources". Furthermore, "Thanks to joint investment in innovation and research, several European “Silicon Valleys” emerge to host clusters of venture capitalists,start-ups, large companies and research centers". As such, in this scenario we see the strongest and most prominent European scientific identity developed. In this scenario, science and research is fundamental to helping integrate Europe.
So in conclusion, we can rank the five scenarios in some manner, seeing how they affect the scientific identity of Europe itself. My own thoughts are (on a scale of best to worst) is as follows. 5, 1, 3, 4, 2. Furthermore, I see the MCAA positioned to be a leader in shaping what we envisage the scientific identity of Europe will look like in the future.