Doc. 9184

29 August 2001

Scientific and technological development in central and eastern Europe

Report

Committee on Culture, Science and Education

Rapporteur: Mr Petr Mateju, Czech Republic, Group of the European People’s Party

Summary

      Research in the hard sciences was traditionally a priority in most countries of central and eastern Europe and, as a result, its outcome could be compared to that of the west. Recent serious reductions in government funding have significantly downgraded research in these countries. Their major problem is however the lack of links between research and industry. Without these the knowledge created in universities and research institutes cannot be transferred to industry and sold in the market. The establishment of such links is therefore the key for economic development.

      Increased paneuropean cooperation in the field of research, development and, in particular, innovation, together with appropriate measures at national level, may significantly accelerate positive developments in all countries concerned.

I.       Draft resolution

1.       The Assembly is aware of the importance of scientific and technological development for the integration of countries of central and eastern Europe into the community of economically advanced European countries.

2.       The countries of central and eastern Europe have undergone a serious reduction in public funding for scientific research and development (R&D). Reductions have varied between and within countries.

3.       Several central and east European countries, in particular CIS countries, are still experiencing the consequences of the failure of the centrally planned economy. The main problems are that they have been unable to establish an effective coordination between academic, university-run science and technology and applied science and technology, or to involve scientists from military science and technology establishments in the civil sector. Full advantage has not been taken of the available scientific and human potential. The research community has lost its social status and political influence and unemployment has increased dramatically among scientists.

4.       There is in general an ongoing brain drain towards western Europe and the United States.

5.       There are signals of positive developments in the countries lagging behind. This is the case of several cities in Russia, which are expected to become important centres of information technology.

6.       The Assembly recalls its Resolution 1075 (1996) on scientific and technological co-operation with central and east European countries, and calls upon the governments of Council of Europe member states:

i.        to intensify the paneuropean R&D co-operation, in particular by enhancing the R&D component in western assistance programmes targeted towards central and east European countries;

ii.        to involve central and east European countries as closely as possible in paneuropean R&D programmes, in particular in the forthcoming European Union Framework Programme 6 for research and technological development, and prepare them for full integration in any extended European Research Area;

iii.        to support the development, in central and east Europe, of a network of “centres of excellence”, created strictly on a competitive basis with a strong participation of reviewers from western countries, defined as operational R&D units, either independent or functioning within a locally established research organisation, having their own specific agendas and preferably their own organisational and administrative boundaries, with a potential to contribute to the stabilisation of the research establishment, to a decrease of the brain-drain phenomenon and to helping economic development;

iv.        to encourage researchers, as well as research institutions, from western Europe to apply the same standards that they use in their own countries when assessing research projects coming from central and east European countries;

v.        to encourage European financial institutions to support initiatives that might accelerate the development of scientific communities in central and east European countries and lead to a more efficient use of their intellectual potential.

7.       The Assembly also calls in particular on the governments of the central and east European countries:

i.        to analyse the basic trends in research activities at national level and assess the efficiency of the measures taken over the last years with a view to developing R&D efforts and elaborating explicit policies for stimulating technological innovations;

ii        to increase the percentage of the GDP allocated to research and technological development (RTD);

iii.        to give encouragement to such priority areas as the dissemination of electronic data processing, information technologies and telecommunications in the economy and society, the development of small technology-based firms, the increase of the efficiency of technology transfer, the dissemination of environment friendly technologies, the acceleration of the commercialisation of research results and inventions and, from this, the development of the R&D infrastructure;

iv.        to analyse the impact on paneuropean cooperation in R&D of administrative measures officially destined to prevent prejudices in the field of economic and scientific cooperation, such as the ones put into practice in Russia, where scientists have been asked to inform their tutelar authorities on all their contacts abroad;

v.        to invite universities and academies of science to review their respective roles in the national R&D systems and to propose, for instance, how the research institutes of academies of science could be transformed into centres of research and post-graduate education;

vi.        to encourage closer links between research and higher education, where these have become artificially separated during the communist era, and support the evolution of the research establishment towards a greater sensitivity to the needs of society in general and industry in particular;

vii.        to intensify cooperation among themselves, in order to allow the countries lagging behind to use the experience of the most successful countries in the restructuration of their R&D systems.

II.       Explanatory memorandum by Mr Mateju1

Contents

Paragraphs

Introduction       1 - 4

Research, technology, innovation in CEECs       5 - 11

Science and its role       12 - 24

Small and medium sized enterprises       25 - 26

Market and quality       27 – 28

Levels of RTD spending       29 - 33

Institutional restructuring       34 - 38

Changing co-operation priorities       39 - 45

Centres of excellence       46 - 54

Science policy       55 - 58

Academia and industry       59 - 61

Drive toward integration and co-operation       62 - 65

Governments and scientific research       66 - 68

Research infrastructures       69 - 70

Conclusions       71 - 75

Introduction

1.       Future economic development is largely based on the invention of new technologies and this is especially true for Europe, lagging behind the US significantly in this drive. This is an important task for science which is seen as the basis of these new technologies.

2.       Rationalistic thinking, the basis of the scientific approach, has been important in Europe from ancient Greek times. It is our responsibility to further develop this scientific - rationalistic heritage. We have then to apply all scientific knowledge to improve technology and to widen the pool of this knowledge for further technological development, to involve social sciences and humanities too as far as possible in the drive to improve the quality of life of mankind and last but not least to develop scientific knowledge for its own sake in order to understand better the macro and micro worlds, our surroundings and ourselves.

3.       All these efforts have to be carried out in competition with the other parts of the world, mainly with the US and Japan, but partly due to globalisation, and partly to the nature of research, this competition has also to be combined with co-operation between the competitors.

4.       If Europe wants to win in this competition – as we want and should - the quality of our work has to be improved. A detailed analysis of our strengths and weaknesses, followed by appropriate action, is a necessary starting point.

Research, technology, innovation in CEECs

5.       Innovation - in processes, products, organisational systems - based on the application of modern research and technological development (RTD) is indisputably the mainspring of national competitiveness and economic growth. Studies in many industrialised nations put this beyond doubt. In some - U.S., Japan, Germany, UK, France, for example - the contribution from RTD to economic growth ranges from 50 to 78%, the remaining being contributed by investment in capital stock and labour productivity. RTD-based development continues to be the primary driver of ongoing economic change and restructuring, including the rearrangement of economic power structures between regions and nations. Technological innovation continues to create new enterprises and to transform or terminate old ones. In the process, it constantly drives the evaluation of regional, national and international economies.

6.       Success in innovation is intimately linked with sustained investment in, and diffusion of, RTD. There are a number of reasons for this. Science-intensive industries are the primary producers of new technologies and the stimulators of higher technological levels in a nation. Even more important, provided appropriate transfer and diffusion mechanisms are in place, the high-tech sector can help drive new technology into less advanced sectors of the economy, sectors in which employment can be generated faster and at lower cost, creating an upward spiral of economic development and growth - a very real development scenario for the CEECs, given their long established traditions in technology and especially in science.

7.       Sustainable economic growth in the CEECs holds the key to their successful development. This growth will depend on and derive from a strong RTD capability base.

8.       Unless RTD systems are well structured, well resourced and functioning efficiently, there is every chance that technological and therefore income disparities will restrict cohesion and reduce the pace of development. The cohesion deficit in the EU provides ample justification for pro-active policies now, to address this question in the CEECs in preparation for their more effective integration or co-operation.

9.       The Essen Commitment to enlargement of the EU by accession of CEECs, as soon as they are able to assume the obligations of membership, has important implications for the RTD sector, as it emerges from the deep financial and structural crisis throughout Central and eastern Europe. An important goal of the accession period is the progressive integration of systems, as well as increasing co-operation, so as to create an increasingly unified area. In this context, RTD is identified specifically as one of the areas (along with transport, energy and telecommunications) in which efforts at the European level are necessary to ensure success. It is in the mutual interests of the EU and the associated countries to work together in this area.

10.       But there are serious problems to be addressed if these mutual benefits are to be realised. The CEECs themselves need to develop new coherent technical and technological development policies. In some cases even institutional reform and restructuring needs to be completed. Pro-active policy and planning processes need to be put in place, so as to promote the rapid establishment of national systems of innovation to fuel sustainable economic growth.

11.       The CEECs have given many outstanding scientists and innovators to the world and still have strong, but strongly hurt and financially straitened RTD communities, which are based generally on good traditions of science and scientific research. Many CEECs, even during the strongest isolation periods, maintained and even extended scientific connections with the West. The growing institutionalisation and strengthening of these connections may serve as one of the strongest driving forces in bringing CEECs ultimately into an extended European Research Area (ERA). Within the CEECs this sector probably has the strongest similarity with its West European counterparts in educational standards, working morale and motivation, scale of values, language abilities, technical expertise etc., which could provide leading edge learning experience for other sectors of CEEC’s economies. CEEC science, with its traditions, international reputation and contacts could be a valuable driving force in co-operation.

Science and its role

12.       The role of science changes everywhere. This is mainly connected with the needs of the knowledge-based societies but the change of priorities (instead of national security competitiveness and job creation) is also affecting scientific development.

13.       It would be wise if the CEECs which are restructuring their R&D activity learn from the forerunners and take into account the general trends.

14.       Problem solving is one of the main tasks of science. This is, however, motivated not only by the needs of science itself but also by usefulness for industry, government and society in general. This is more than contribution to the development of new products but a general production of knowledge and its diffusion in the whole society. The use of information technology know-how is a typical example of this.

15.       Transdisciplinarity is another new requirement in research with integration of different skills into problem solving. The solution has to start from the problem and not the reverse, involving both theory and experiment, but not necessarily in disciplinary form. The diffusion of knowledge is part of the process but it is not necessarily realised through institutional channels. Modern research is characterised by heterogeneity and organisational diversity in terms of skills and experience of people. This implies that the number of sites where knowledge is created is increasing and in order to work efficiently they have to be linked together in many ways e.g. electronically. The other implication is that these sites have to be more and more specialised. In this working régime co-operation skills are vital, so are flexibility and fast response.

16.       Mainly due to growing public concern, motivated for example by health or environmental issues, the importance of accountability and sensitivity for societal needs is increasing. This should not only be reflected in the results of research and their presentation, but in defining the problems and setting the research priorities too.

17.       In “classical” times quality control was enforced by the peer review process and this control was realised through the selection of the peers. In recent times additional criteria come into the play, connected with applications and the demand for their results. This means that the societal needs and the market do also influence this process.

18.       All these arguments speak in favour of institutional changes in the research network both on national and regional or international levels. This does not mean, however, that the new mode of operation completely replaces the old one. A co-existence of the two systems is the ideal situation and if the old structures do not adapt themselves to the new requirements they will be by-passed.

19.       As far as the CEECs are concerned they also have to redirect their efforts in order to adapt their R&D system to these new requirements. In addition to the need to go along with world-wide changes they are advised to weaken the centralising efforts of their bureaucracy which roots deeply in their past. The R&D management also needs changes. It should get rid of the traditions of “classical” planning practice and should be more open towards the R&D community.

20.       The research staff is often narrow in terms of disciplines and the relative size of the tenured staff is high. In order to increase mobility and strengthen competition a larger proportion of researchers should be employed on a contract basis and co-operation between different research groups should be strengthened. Co-operation between research groups and the outside world should, however, also be strengthened.

21.       Problem solving skills have always been good in the CEECs countries. Their relatively low level of financing forced them to rely on their creativity even before the structural changes started. The weak points are on the side of applications. In this respect large steps should be made. The research establishment should be more sensitive to the needs of the society in general and industry in particular.

22.       In recent years, the rapid development of new technologies has become one of the most important forms of economic competition. Since R&D activities are major sources of technology and technical knowledge, it is increasingly recognised that an explicit RTD policy for stimulating technological innovation is an essential and integral part of any country’s future economic development.

23.       Economic change, social progress and political stability will be influenced by decisions in the RTD sphere, as on-going industrial renewal is dependent, to a large extent, on the development of technological knowledge and its dissemination to industry. This may be particularly the case within central and east European economies where their competitiveness and the dynamism of evolution to a free market system is largely determined by the intellectual potential capable of developing and applying new technologies. Moreover, coherent RTD policies can significantly aid the process of re-industrialisation within CEECs, including the extent to which existing firms can improve their performance.

24.       CEECs have themselves recognised that there are a number of priority areas, which need to be addressed quickly, in order to help the economy as a whole. These include the dissemination of electronic data processing, information technology and telecommunications in the economy and society, the development of small technology-based firms, increasing the efficiency of technology transfer, the dissemination of environment-friendly technologies, the acceleration of the commercialisation of research results and inventions and, from this, the development of an R&D infrastructure.

Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)

25.       The emphasis of RTD programmes on the promotion of SMEs may be of particular benefit to CEECs, as the process of decentralisation and privatisation has resulted in the development of many small technology-based ventures. However, the lack of capital available to these firms makes it almost impossible for them to acquire or develop technologies quickly and, more importantly, to participate in various international RTD programmes.

26.       Therefore, the development of a coherent and focused RTD policy can provide a significant input to aiding the transformation process within Central and Eastern European economies. In particular, RTD policy initiatives must address the weaknesses inherent to these changing economies, such as reducing the technology gap between East and West, encouraging the development of a strong SME sector and ensuring efficient technology transfer systems, whilst also building on national technological advantages, especially in the efficient utilisation of highly capable scientific personnel, and the development of strong strategic industries. However, these issues cannot be addressed without a parallel development of human resource skills, a scientific base, international channels and basic technological support, measures, which could be encouraged and enhanced through increased access to specific European RTD programmes.

Market and quality

27.       The former COMECON market was not quality sensitive and so was not prepared to pay for quality. The neglect of quality control and the lack of an institutional network behind it have been one of the most damaging problems of the economies of CEECs. This attitude affected naturally the R&D network too, both as the user of the most sophisticated industrial goods (measuring instruments, technological facilities, etc.) and as the basis of industrial activity with moderate quality demand. The peer-review system was also not widely used. The situation in this respect has now significantly changed. In most countries grant-based financing has been introduced with an acceptable peer review system. Other forms of quality control (e.g. accreditation in higher education or performance of individuals in university research) are also widely used. The market acceptance of R&D results and the market pull for innovative results is, however, still weak although slowly but positively changing, especially in the most advanced countries.

28.       Institutional reforms have been carried out or are on the way in all countries. The speed of this process is, however, not too high. The two main brakes are the strongly limited financial background and the continuing presence of the old way of thinking both among scientists and in policy shaping organisations.

Levels of RTD spending

29.       For a variety of reasons it is difficult to present reliable data for expenditure on RTD by CEECs, even though many of them are now attempting to apply OECD (Frascati) definitions to the measurement of their RTD capacity. The evidence and experience available, however, indicated the virtual collapse of RTD expenditure in all CEECs since the early 1990s with a recent recovery in most cases. In addition, the international data available on numbers of patents taken out in Europe and in the US by CEECs also show evidence of decline. It seems likely that one of the effects of the collapse of RTD support is that personnel who were previously employed in RTD now spend most of their time performing other scientific and technical services, especially those which generate income, such as consultancy, teaching and technical services. The brain drain affects also strongly the research personal of most of these countries. This is mainly due to the decline in salaries, as well as a fall in investment in equipment and instrumentation. The combined effect of these cutbacks is that the ratio of RTD to GDP has declined in CEECs by more that 50%.

30.       The levels of RTD spending is much below the EU average and is in most cases below 1% of the GDP except a few cases with 1–1,5%. In these latter cases infrastructure development programmes have also been started. If one looks behind the average numbers, the first observation is that government spending is relatively high but still below the EU average. The extraordinarily low spending is due mainly to the private sector. A second shortcoming is the low absolute level of spending due to the still low GDP of CEECs. Therefore it cannot be expected that the average spending on R&D of the EU member countries can be reached in a short period even in those CEECs where the growth of the economy is significantly larger than the EU average.

31.       The pains of the transition period can be eased by the financial support of PHARE and TACIS programmes, general tools for restructuring with a limited but still significant contribution to the R&D sector.

32.       PHARE has significantly contributed to the structural changes in CEECs in general and to changes of the R&D institutional structures in particular. In operational terms, it responds to needs identified by the CEECs and is essentially a “demand driven” instrument. PHARE contributes to the “membership fee” of the accession countries in the EU Framework Programme for RTD (FP5).

33.       The CEECs are almost the only ones in the world economy which experienced a serious decline in RTD in recent times. This stands in marked contrast to the position in Western Europe and particularly to the emerging economies of Asia and the Pacific Rim.

Institutional restructuring

34.       Institutional restructuring is now at the top of the science policy agenda in most CEECs, as they attempt to introduce national systems of innovation on lines similar to Western Europe. The transition process is, however, slow. The most advanced countries have, however, already managed to take the basic steps in the restructuring of their research network. On the other hand, many of the so-called “branch institutes”, which were devoted to applied technological research and development on behalf of their respective Ministries, have virtually disappeared, mainly because of the budgetary cutbacks in RTD financing. The Universities are now trying to find their way in research, sometimes assisted by the Academies. In some countries the Academy structures survived, after significant restructuring and are among the most efficient research institutions. The funding of RTD favours however the Universities and the linkage between research and teaching tightens.

35.       All CEECs are now preoccupied with international linkages and particularly with strengthening their connections with the scientific establishment in Western Europe. The “opening” of the FP5 has been widely welcomed. The other CEECs have also significant co-operation within this programme.

36.       Most of the CEECs fall well behind the performance of the EU countries, even though the CEECs did manage to educate large numbers of scientists and engineers. While some produced very high quality work, the average level of scientific output and quality is well below European or world norms. Still, some strong areas of science seem to be surviving. Chemistry, for example, appears to be surviving quite well, and also physics output and performance are holding up. Mathematics also is strong, e.g. in Hungary and also in Romania. Biology is also performing well in the best CEECs. Countries of the former Soviet Union have also preserved part of their strengths, first of all in basic research.

37.       On the output side, innovative performance is particularly weak. Patenting activity has generally collapsed. There is a major deficit in both product and process innovation. Product innovation is crucial and urgent if these economies are to compete, even domestically. Under the central planning system, innovation had a low priority. There remains, to an extent, a cultural reaction against conditions favouring innovation; open systems, interaction, mobility, the free exchange of ideas, as well as a deficit in the institutional resources necessary to support and stimulate innovative performance are also weak points.

38.       Generally science is stronger than technology and there are, as a consequence, few opportunities for indigenous technology transfer. The acquisition of technology from abroad is however growing and mainly foreign companies use it as an access route to the vast markets of the CEECs. But within the CEECs, technology transfer mechanisms and processes are in an embryonic state with limited experience, except in some of the CEECs, in IPR or patent management, technology licensing or innovation management.

Changing co-operation priorities

39.       European science, technology and innovation policies have been changing in the last decade influencing the institutional, regional, national and European competencies and responsibilities. CEECs tried to follow the same trends but at the same time they have been forced to carry out the basic restructuring of their R&D system with limited financial resources and know-how.

40.       Since these countries operated a structure centralised within the countries and isolated from the outside world, with the exception of the more-or-less formal co-operation within COMECON, the necessary changes had to be governed by two principles. The first one is the strengthening of bottom-up approaches within the country, introducing democratic institutional changes (e.g. management practices), putting a stronger emphasis on regional issues, grant based, competitive financing techniques, etc.

41.       At the same time a strong drive toward the opening of the research establishment to the outside world in an institutionalised way has been started. This tendency has been positively met by the potential partners. The first steps were regional, marked by the Alps-Adria Co-operation, the Central European Initiative or the co-operation of the Baltic States. In the next phase the participation in European programmes (Eureka, COST) and institutions (European Science Foundation (ESF), European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), European Molecules Biology Laboratory (EMBL), European Space Agency (ESA), etc.) have been the main goal. The Framework Programmes of the EU have been for many years in the centre of interest of the CEECs. It is believed that participation in the Framework Programmes and particularly in FP5 has had the largest impact on the harmonisation of the national R&D system, The accession countries when joining FP5 and opening their R&D programmes for the EU took a very significant, although risky step, which should be acknowledged by gradually increasing their involvement in EU programmes. The evaluation of their performance in the first round is a good measure of their present readiness for even stronger and broader integration e.g. into the new Framework Programme and ERA.

42.       In the re-structuring process new types of institutions have been founded. Some others have been transformed in order to be more efficient and to fit better into the European RTD system.

43.       Within the research network, institutes of advanced studies were created mainly with foreign financial background, such as the Collegium Budapest, with strong intellectual contribution from a group of advanced European countries. These types of institutes are some sort of centres of excellence in the host country but do not seem to have the required impact on the local intellectual environment. In a few countries the research networks of the academies of sciences have been converted into Max Planck Society type of institutions remaining mostly within these academies but with a largely separate management. In the field of applied research networks are being created, modelling the structure of the Frauenhofer Institutes. This process is, however, too slow.

44.       The industrial landscape was ruled in the COMECON countries by large, megalomaniac companies, not sensitive at all to market demands, cost efficiency and innovation. When these countries started their structural changes these large companies mostly fell into parts or were privatised, mainly sold to foreigners. The multinationals filled this gap and built up large manufacturing and service capacities relying mainly on an R&D background outside the country. This situation is slowly but significantly changing in several countries. Outsourcing of research is an increasingly popular tendency and the companies themselves are starting to build up their own research units. It is in the interest of CEECs to exploit all possible means to extend and accelerate this tendency.

45.       In spite of the fact that the R&D spending is low, new types of financing institutions have been built up. The picture is multi-coloured. Government agencies, research councils, foundations, academies of sciences are part of it. Both bottom-up and top-down approaches are present and a significant proportion of funds is distributed in a competitive structure on the basis of peer-review systems. The experience through participation in international, mainly EU programmes contributes significantly to the improvement of efficient allocation of funds and to the harmonisation of national practices with the European.

Centres of excellence

46.       One of the promising initiatives of the EU is to create a network of Centres of Excellence in the accession countries with financial support within the frame of the FP5. It identifies a Centre of Excellence as an “existing working unit (a single proposer), either independent or functioning within a locally established research organisation of one of the countries concerned, having its own specific research agenda and preferably distinct organisational and administrative boundaries. The Centre should not be a subsidiary or branch of an organisation established in another country”.

47.       The announced objective was “to support approximately 20 excellent research centres in these countries (their number turned out to be significantly higher), namely 34 to better put their capabilities at the service of the economic and social needs of the region, in conformity with the interest of the Union as a whole. This is done in the first place by enabling them to improve their links with other European centres, e.g. through networking and twinning arrangements”. The target countries of this appeal were Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

48.       The above definition of the “Centres of Excellence” is different from the definition given in the document “Towards a European Research Area” in that it refers to units geographically located, while the latter rather insist on the networking in cyber-space of existing laboratories selected for their high standard of research. It seems that the development of excellent research centres with a clear vocation to serve as temporary hosting institutions for researchers from both Western, Central and Eastern European scientists, and as nodes for meetings of these researchers, is important. The archetype of Centres of Excellence has been somewhat anticipated by the International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, and has been followed by the recent creation of several such centres, among which the Collegium Budapest is perhaps considered as a model. It is likely that the EU policy with respect to the creation of Centres of Excellence is a powerful tool that could stop the brain drain of so many talented scientists from the eastern part of Europe; at the same time, centres of excellence should be suitable to improve the level of scientific expertise in Central Europe. Such a ring of Centres of Excellence should cover a wide area, from basic to applied science, in all fields of knowledge, from social to biological, to physical and mathematical sciences.

49.       The Centres of Excellence are created around existing national centres, as soon as the latter have proven to have the necessary level of scientific quality and an already existing good system of management (which, at the occasion of the transformation of the Centre into an European Centre of Excellence, can be adapted and rendered more flexible).

50.       Since this initiative has already turned out to be useful only after about half a year of existence, it is thought to be a good idea to extend this practice to the other CEECs involving also other funds than those of the EU. This could contribute to the stabilisation of the research establishment of these countries, decrease brain drain, help economic development and political stability too.

51.       Centres of Excellence grow by themselves if the conditions are appropriate. Education, a sparkling and free intellectual climate, a proper institutional background and financing and good public acceptance may be the most important conditions for scientific development, not to mention open co-operation on a European and global scale.

52.       Excellence has to be measured in some widely recognised form. Peer review has been the main instrument worldwide, based to a large extent on scientometry. There are, however, permanent debates practically in all countries on the additional parameters needed for the evaluation of the achievements of the individual scientist and the performance of larger research units. No generally accepted practice exists yet. In the latter case a permanent evaluation combined with a comparison with the world leaders in the particular field, called benchmarking, is gaining in significance.

53.       There is a need to adopt and use in all European countries internationally agreed criteria for the assessment and evaluation of research proposals and of the scientific production of individual scientists and research units.

54.       Assessment and evaluation of scientists, researchers or institutions in former communist countries using peer review has not always been the normal process used in allocating resources. Though the political situation has changed significantly and many formally objective measures have been adopted, it is necessary to ensure that well developed, transparent, universal and widely accepted systems of criteria for evaluations in science and research are established in the CEECs. Any remaining traces of the methods used in the past, such as the biased selection of reviewers, are to be banned.

Science policy

55.       Most of CEECs are only presently acquiring the institutional capabilities for sophisticated policy making on science and technology (S&T) and innovation and for building consensus among policy makers, corporate decision makers and members of the research community on S&T and innovation policy issues. The recognition of the growing importance of knowledge and continuous life-long learning as the basis of economic success in the 21st century is in an early stage outside of the S&T community. To change this situation is difficult, time consuming and expensive, but it has to be done if the economies of these nations are to develop the scientific and technological foundations for sustained innovation and long term economic growth.

56.       Apart from the shortage of funds, there are many barriers to successful policy making on S&T and innovation in the CEECs, among others:

57.       In spite of these shortcomings, healthy efforts of governments, advisory committees, public institutions such as academies are observed formulating competitive science policies. Possibilities of the FP5 offered in this field (Development of scientific and technological policies in Europe) have not yet been efficiently exploited by the CEECs.

58.       One of the serious mistakes of the R&D policy of the COMECON countries has been the artificial separation of research from higher education. It is not easy to correct this deficiency. Even more so since there is frequently a strong interest on both sides, namely research institutions and universities to slow down the integration process. Some results are, however, visible in most countries. Joint chairs, joint laboratories at universities and research institutes, the participation of the research staff in higher education, mutual representation in governing and advisory bodies are all positive signs of this process. The restructuring of research institutes and the reforms of university structures with a more optimal distribution of different types of research within the whole R&D system are also changes in the right direction.

Academia and industry

59.       Co-operation between academia and university is one of the weak points of the R&D system of CEECs. Earlier these relations were based on personal contacts and the common work was only modestly motivated by economic interests. In the transition period signs of this old system are still present, but both sides try to adapt to the demands of the new market economies. A network of technology transfer liaison offices has been built up and the number of innovation parks is steadily growing.

60.       The “classical” co-operation between research and industry has collapsed in the first phase of structural changes in CEECs. This has been partly due to the collapse of the industrial structure of planned economies, but is also connected with industrial and research priorities motivated by cold war needs and COCOM trade restrictions.

61.       In transition to a market economy régime the co-operation spectrum is multi-coloured. Signs of the old system are still present but an adaptation process to new practices is on its way. Different CEECs are in different phases of this process. Of course, the problems are also different from country to country but with some similar features. Practically all institutions and mechanisms existing in EU countries are present in CEECs but sometimes only with marginal influence, financial and managerial deficiencies and modest efficiency. Liaison offices for technology transfer have been created in some cases with networks of topical and regional offices but they in most cases are not looking for their optimal fields of activity.       Innovation parks are growing but due mainly to the weak innovation sensitivity of SMEs they are less vigorous than they could be. Quality control and assurance has been neglected earlier and to find their proper place in the economies of CEECs is still not without problems. International property rights to be properly controlled are a pre-condition of integration. Only few of the CEECs treat this problem with the required attention. The industry of CEECs has not been sensitive to environmental issues and governments (as owners of these industries) shared this view. The changes to adapt to new standards are painful and costly. Research communities are also obliged to pay more attention to this issue, but external help is also needed.

Drive toward integration and co-operation

62.       The active participation of CEECs in existing and planned EU research programmes - if properly done - should be one of the main tools to harmonise pan-European practices. As far as FP5 is concerned, the projects must include partners from at least two EU member states, or from one member state and one of the 16 associated states (including the following CEECs: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia). As associated states contribute to the FP5 budget, bodies from these states may receive EU support for their project participation, on the same basis as EU member states. The creation of the ERA aims also at bringing together scientific communities, companies and researchers from Western and Eastern Europe, in the prospect of the enlargement of the EU to 25 or 30 countries.

63.       The emphasis of the EU on regional co-operation is understood in CEECs and in spite of traditional tensions in the region it does not seem to be a real problem. The institutional background of this co-operation exists only in a limited form in most of the countries for national regional co-operation and is in its infantry for cross-boarder co-operation.

64.       It is important to strengthen co-ordinated regional co-operation. Attention should, however, be paid to avoiding the formation of Central or East European ghettos. The active involvement of EU member countries in these regional programmes is vital and can strengthen this co-operation. At the same time it should be mentioned that the advisory role of foreign experts in these programmes should be carefully treated. Past experience with this type of expertise has been moderately positive and useful since the local specificity has been in this practice mostly neglected.

65.       As a conclusion, it can be stated that the biggest help for CEECs countries is their strongest possible involvement in the R&D programmes. If in some cases full participation is still legally restricted, ways should be found for limited participation e.g. by inviting observers from CEECs.

Governments and scientific research

66.       The political élite in CEECs is not always aware of the significance of science in economic development. Therefore science policy is rarely the organic part of government policies in the region. This may be partly connected with the modest scientific background of the political élite but could also be connected with the political and social burden of the structural changes leaving limited energy of policy makers for issues of science.

67.       The clearest indication, however, of a positive change of attitude has been the decision in many CEECs to join the FP5. The increase of R&D spending, even if modest in most cases, is an other sign of the same tendency. With improving performance of the CEE economies a stronger increase is expected but a basic break-through is not yet seen. It is hoped that the integration process within Europe, the conditions set for it and the not only professional but political need for successful participation will force decision makers to follow more favourable approaches. A demonstration from the EU side of the significance of this issue as seen in the Lisbon decisions may have a positive effect on the science policy of CEECs. This demonstration could be emphasised by some preferences given by the Commission to use the structural type of funds to strengthen science policy and it’s infrastructural background in CEECs.

68.       Governments of CEECs should be brought into the position to be good and honest brokers of research. The significance of this type of activity is increasing, since players in the field of R&D are coming from different fields, places and institutions and their work has to be harmonised. In this way non-scientists are also becoming important players in research or rather innovation. Scientists remain, however, still the driving forces of research but priorities are generated in a much broader scope. This implies that the new innovation policy of governments is or should be an organic part of general policies (environmental issues, quality of life, information technologies, etc.) and should be supported by a new style of management with many players involved and separated from the permanent fluctuations of politics.

Research infrastructures

69.       Large facilities, or, more generally, large research infrastructures, are the basis of high level research in a permanently increasing area. On the other hand, motivated by increasing costs and the need for efficient exploitation, this is the most typical area for international co-operation. The large European research infrastructures are located, with a few exceptions, in the EU countries and this situation is not expected to change in the near future.

70.       Therefore the participation of CEECs in the large facility programmes of FP5 and its successor FP6 is vitally important. In order to define the fair and realistic place of these countries in the research infrastructure policy on the European level it is recommended that:

-       the participation of research groups of CEECs should be encouraged and supported to exploit the possibilities offered by the large facility programme;

-       the existing few medium size facilities should be integrated into this programme;

-       the participation in European international facility building and institutions should be widened and

-       through existing organisations (ESF, ESA, etc.) CEECs should be involved both professionally and in limited volume financially in the preparatory work of infrastructural development.

Conclusions

71.       In the last decade, the CEECs overcame numerous unexpected difficulties and had many significant achievements.

72.       The basic structures for R&D and their management have not been restructured enough in the CEECs in general as to be able to compete with advanced countries in R&D development. The parallel existence of the University system with the Academies of sciences, the very narrow space for cooperation between universities and industry, as well as the extremely slow growth in the number of spin-off companies are among the fields which require action.

73.       What are needed from the inside of the CEECs are a higher level of financing and a stable science policy in harmony with EU (and global) tendencies.

74.       The R&D communities should be involved in the strongest possible form in all European research ventures and national science policies should be harmonised with European practices. This can be achieved if CEECs are involved among others in the decision making process of European organisations and structures.

75.       Financial aid from the EU and other European sources could accelerate the development of competitive science communities in CEECs and lead to a more efficient exploitation of their vast intellectual potential.

Reporting committee: Committee on Culture, Science and Education

Reference to committee: Doc. 8412 and Reference No. 2394 of 26 May 1999; Doc. 8323 and Reference No. 2362 of 30 March 1999

Draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the committee on 28 June 2001

Members of the committee: MM. Rakhansky (Chairman), de Puig, Risari, Billing (Vice-Chairmen), Akhvlediani, Arzilli, Asciak (Alternate: Debono Grech), Berceanu, Berzinš, Birraux, Mrs Castro (Alternate: Mr Varela i Serra), MM. Chaklein, Cherribi, Cubreacov, Mrs Damanaki, MM. Dias, Dolazza (Alternate: Martelli), Duka-Zólyomi, Fayot, Mrs Fernández-Capel, MM. Galoyan, Goris, Haraldsson, Hegyi, Henry, Higgins (Alternate: Kiely), Irmer, Mrs Isohookana-Asunmaa, MM. Ivanov, Jakic, Kalkan, Mrs Katseli, MM. Kofod-Svendsen, Kramaric, Mrs Kutraité Giedraitiené, MM. Lachat, Lekberg, Lemoine, Lengagne, Libicki, Liiv, Mrs Lucyga, MM. Maass, Marmazov, Marxer, Mateju, McNamara, Melnikov (Alternate: Gostev), Mignon, Minarolli, Nagy (Alternate: Lotz), Mrs Nemcova, MM. Nigmatulin, O’Hara, Pavlov, Pingerra, Mrs Pintat Rossell, MM. Prisacaru, MM. Rapson (Alternate: Hancock), Roseta, Mrs Saele (Alternate: Mr Thoresen), Mr Saglam, Mrs Schicker, MM. Schweitzer (Alternate: Jung), Seyidov, Sudarenkov, Symonenko, Tanik, Theodorou, Tudor, Turini, Urbanczyk, Vakilov (Alternate: Aliyev), Valk, Wilshire (Alternate: Jackson), Wittbrodt, Wodarg (Alternate: Mrs Jäger), Mr Xhaferi

N.B. The names of those present at the meeting are printed in italics

Secretariat of the committee : Mr Grayson, Mr Ary, Mrs Theophilova-Permaul, Mr Torcătoriu

1 The Rapporteur wishes to express his thanks to Dr Norbert Kroo, Secretary General of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, for his valuable assistance in the elaboration of this report.