Doc. 9185

29 August 2001

Young scientists in Europe

Report

Committee on Culture, Science and Education

Rapporteur: Mr Edmund Wittbrodt, Poland, Group of the European People’s Party

Summary

In order to maintain and increase European competitiveness on a solid scientific basis and in an ethical environment, governments, particularly those of countries which have experienced important economic and social reforms, are invited to ensure young scientists attractive working conditions and careers through an adequate level of financing.

The report proposes to constitute a paneuropean space for young scientists in order to fight the « brain drain ». Regional, pan-European and international cooperation among institutions of higher education and research and industry, and short-term and long-term mobility schemes, should also be promoted to improve the research capacity and foster excellence among young scientists.

I.       Draft recommendation

1. Science is playing an increasingly important role in the development of modern societies. The production, acquisition and use of knowledge (through research, information, education, training, and technological development) form the foundation of the “knowledge society” that will further develop during the twenty–first century. An ethical environment is necessary to ensure that the rights of citizens are respected, but a strong scientific basis is essential for a country to remain a competitive player in a global economy.

2. It is therefore of strategic importance that a satisfactory recruitment of young talented people to the science sector be secured. Science education in schools should be strengthened, as requested by the Assembly in its Recommendation 1379 (1998). The profession should be made more attractive for young scientists embarking on a career. Opportunities for cooperation between young scientists should be promoted.

3. Recommendation No. R (2000) 8 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the research mission of universities is also of particular relevance in this context as also Recommendations Nos. R (85) 21 on mobility of academic staff, R (95) 8 on academic mobility and R (96) 7 on regional academic mobility.

4. Other initiatives aiming at enhancing and encouraging research co-operation in Europe include the decision of the European Commission to create a European Research Area, the Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Education on the European Higher Education Area (Bologna, 19 June 1999) and many activities of Unesco and the European Science Foundation.

5. The retirement en masse of the “baby boom” generation, which has shaped research, teaching and technological development in universities, laboratories and industry over the last 30 years, and the important and rapid development of new sectors such as biotechnology, information and communication technologies, make the training and recruitment of young scientists a crucial issue.

6. In those European countries which experienced during the last decade important economic and social reforms, it is urgent to re-create the conditions to counter the dramatic “brain drain” and to maintain and further develop a sound scientific capacity. The Assembly welcomes in this context Recommendation No. R (95) 7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on brain drain in the sectors of higher education and research.

7. European co-operation among young scientists will considerably contribute to maintain and improve European competitiveness in all areas. It could also speed up and facilitate the pooling of research resources and the creation of common research infrastructures. Encouraging these scientists to participate actively in international and European network co-operation and to undertake part of their advanced training (doctoral studies or beyond) in another country will give them a valuable experience of working in a multicultural environment. This was underlined in Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation No. R (95) 18 on youth mobility.

8. Consequently and with due consideration to the findings of the Assembly’s Paneuropean Conference on “Science and technology in Europe – prospects for the twenty–first century” (Gdansk, 9-11 October 2000) as well as to the conclusions and recommendations of the European Forum of Young Scientists (Gdansk, 7-9 October 2000), the Assembly recommends that Committee of Ministers:

i. promote a paneuropean space for young scientists, in cooperation with other organisations competent in this field such as Unesco, OECD, the European Union (including the Marie Curie Fellowship Association), the European Science Foundation and the Association of European Universities;

and to this end

ii. make a survey regarding the situation of young researchers and post-graduate students in Europe (European and non-European), in particular regarding recruitment, training, mobility, career prospects, research independence and equality issues, with a view to formulate policy advice to member governments and institutions of higher education and research for the promotion of young scientists and Europe-wide co-operation among them through appropriate mobility schemes;

iii. invite member governments, and in particular those of European economies in transition, to ensure an adequate level of funding for research and technological development so as to retain young scientists and facilitate the return of those who might leave to study abroad;

iv. encourage member governments and institutions of higher education and research to launch new strategies for the recruitment, training and career development for young scientists and where possible harmonise these and relevant administrative conditions in order to improve the attractiveness of the scientific profession and redress the unequal situation of women scientists;

v. invite member governments to encourage regional, pan-European and international network co-operation, in particular with the Maghreb countries, among institutions of higher education and research with a view to improving research capacity and the fostering of excellence;

vi. ask member governments, institutions of higher education and research and industry to encourage research co-operation and mobility among young scientists in Europe by giving support to short-term and long-term mobility schemes (also open to young non-European scientists);

vii. invite member governments to give their support to the Unesco Venice Office Project for European Advanced Seminars for Young Scientists (EASYS – Master classes in science), that fosters Europe-wide, transatlantic and Euro-Mediterranean short-term mobility, and to ask Unesco and its partners to reinforce this activity.

II.       Explanatory memorandum by Mr Wittbrodt

Introduction

1.       At the end of 1999 Time Magazine, after long consultation, designated Albert Einstein “Personality of the 20th Century”. The reason given for this choice was that no other personality, however important, was felt to be a better symbol of the passing century that this famous scientist. If the 20st century was the century of science, then all indicators converge in pointing to the 21st century becoming even more so, but differently, and young scientists will definitely play an important role.

2.       A motion for a recommendation on the situation of young researchers in Europe was introduced in 1999 by Mr Melnikov, then Chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology (Doc 8324). The subject was pursued in the Paneuropean Conference on “Science and technology in Europe – Prospects for the XXIst century” (Gdansk, 9-11 October 2000) and in particular in the European Forum of Young Scientists (Gdansk, 7-9 October 2000). The overall conclusion was that science and technology will play a major role in the development of our society in the coming decades. Ensuring the recruitment of young talented people in research activities represents therefore an essential investment in the future of our European societies.

3.       The present report aims to identify policy measures to promote and improve the situation of young scientists in Europe. It should be read alongside other reports arising from the Gdansk conference and relating to the place of science in the economies of transition (Mr Mateju) and to structural reform in higher education and research in central and eastern Europe (Mr Ivanov). Though it is deliberately limited to hard science (which was the subject of the conference) the wider questions of the role of science in society, ethics and democratic control, should not be overlooked.

Progress in a democratic knowledge society

4.       Research is an essential component of the new economy and a knowledge-based society that are developing on a global level. The production, acquisition and use of knowledge in its different forms will, more than ever before, be one of the basic driving forces behind economic and social progress and a key factor in business competitiveness, employment and the quality of life. Science is central to the policy-making process.

5.       The past fifty years have seen greater advances in human knowledge than the previous fifty centuries, and this development is expected to continue, thus making humankind more powerful than ever before. But this new situation leads to the need for ethical choices and requires a high level of democratic responsibility. The biotechnology and information technology revolutions clearly illustrate the need for public debate on the future development of modern society.

6.       It should be pointed out that science and technology seem to have lost their links to society, researchers seem to have forgotten that science and technology should serve mankind, not the reverse. Two reasons could be behind this evolution: on one hand industry-funded research is seen as increasingly profit-driven and interested only in rapid practical results, on the other hand many scientists seem to lack a sound ethical basis.

Towards an European research area

7.       The European Union Commissioner for Research, Mr Philippe Busquin, has summarised the main challenges facing European (EU) research as follows:

8.       It is with these ideas that Mr Busquin launched the initiative to create a European Research Area, which was adopted by the European Commission in January 2000. During the same year the project was endorsed by the Lisbon European Council of Heads of State and Government and by the European Parliament. The idea of creating a European Research Area has also been welcomed by the (EU) Economic and Social Committee and the (EU) Committee of the Regions, as well as by the candidate countries, the scientific community and industry. This European Reseach Area is in the first place limited to the EU countries.

9.       The Committee on Science and Technology of the Parliamentary Assembly discussed this project during its paneuropean conference in Gdansk in October 2000. It became particularly clear during the discussions of the First European Forum of Young Scientists that special attention should be given to young researchers when constructing the European Research Area. It was also the strong conviction of the Committee that the young scientists’ dimension of the project must be paneuropean. Young scientists from other continents should be encouraged to visit and work in such an enlarged European research area.

10.       The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe made a similar point in their Recommendation No. R (2000) 8 on the research mission of universities. This has a separate chapter on training, and recruitment of university researchers (see Appendix 1).

Young scientists

11.       The term “young scientists” strictly speaking applies to persons at the beginning of their post-doctorate careers. In most European countries, this in fact means persons aged 25 to 35, sometimes 40. These people (sometimes referred to as “postdocs”) pursue careers in universities, research organisations, public institutions, and industry. However, to be comprehensive, our report covers young scientists in a broader sense, including university post-graduate students. On the other hand as already said it does not include researchers in the humanities and social sciences.

12.       The European Forum of Young Scientists produced a report which is included in Appendix 2. It gives a clear presentation of the main themes of concern to young scientists working in Europe (including non-Europeans). It also presents a list of proposals for action which your Rapporteur has used in drawing up the draft recommendation of this report, and which should be taken into account in the future work of the Council of Europe as well as by member governments.

13.       It is relevant to add here some of the findings of a comparative survey on the situation of young researchers carried out in 1999 by the European Science Foundation and the Journal “Nature” covering eight West European countries – France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and the United Kingdom.

14.       Employment opportunities, especially in permanent positions, seemed to represent the most important and common problem for young researchers in Europe. Absence of stable and foreseeable career prospects could have a discouraging impact on young researchers and urge them to tolerate excessive workloads and negative attitudes of their colleagues. Very often, young researchers were especially vulnerable to personnel cuts resulting from lower R&D financing or company downsizing.

15.       Payment conditions were also of major importance. Less than two thirds (63 per cent) of the “postdocs” in the ESF/Nature survey found their conditions appropriate or even roughly appropriate. Young researchers’ wages varied strongly between European countries.

16.       Other problems revealed by the ESF/Nature survey included lack of personal recognition, poor work organisation, unclear prospects for promotion, unfriendly attitudes of colleagues, strong hierarchical traditions, interference with non-research tasks such as teaching or staff supervising, etc.

17.       Problems of young female researchers should be given special consideration. Young women who pursued research careers often complained of negative or sceptical attitudes from their colleagues. Besides, those with family responsibilities became less competitive as compared to male researchers. To overcome these problems, gender-specific measures are needed.

18.       In addition to problems common for young researchers in all countries, the ESF/Nature survey also uncovered major national differences, including in particular a clear north-south divide among the eight countries surveyed. The same divide was evident on such basic criteria as receiving adequate credit for young researchers’ work, freedom to question institutional policies, or the quality of technical staff available.

19.       Increasing mobility of young researchers was often considered to be an important method of overcoming some of the above problems. Mobility was very broadly defined, both in terms of sector and geography. Transfer of young researchers to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) or science and technology parks represented interesting examples. This type of mobility involved a scientist’s movement from actual research to research application, often to return to research later, enriched with practical skills and approaches.

20.       International exchanges of young researchers were another type of mobility based on such mechanisms as scholarships, internships, and grants. These exchanges were particularly useful for young researchers carrying out experimental work elsewhere if relevant equipment (such as large research facilities) was unavailable in the home institution. In Europe, there were numerous bilateral and multilateral agreements encouraging such mobility. In the ESF/Nature survey, every third young west European postdoc was found to work outside his or her home country and was not complaining about that. The UK seemed to be most hospitable to foreign young researchers while Spain and Italy were falling seriously behind.

More data is needed.

21.       The study conducted by the ESF and Nature provided a good starting point and guidelines for further analysis. However these data should be confirmed by national authorities and complemented by information from other countries, in particular from Central and Eastern Europe, and on other aspects of the problem.

22.       Another array of data, which would be of great use in this context, regards the ambitions and motivations for the career choices of the younger generations: what is the position of research in their priority lists, which factors encourage young people to join universities and to continue with research training upon graduation. Experience shows that the scientists’ social status and well-being are among the most crucial factors. However, clarification is needed. This is especially true for countries in transition, which have to define clearly the priorities in allocating the resources in their science and youth policies.

23.       Yet one more set of data regarding governmental policies and non-governmental activities aiming to improve the situation of young researchers, and their efficiency in various countries is needed. This includes among others:

24.       Finally, contacts with NGOs operating in this field would be of great importance, both to articulate the opinions of young European researchers and to formulate appropriate policies. The ESF and Euroscience are among those organisations, which have followed the problems of young researchers with close interest. A question worth special consideration is whether young researchers should be encouraged to establish a centralised or network-type organisation to represent their common interests and to spread information about employment opportunities etc.

The East-West dimension in research

25.       The drastic reduction in research effort in the European economies in transition is a problem. Again, increased co-operation and mobility among young scientists, from East and West, could help counter some of the more negative effects for the countries concerned.

26.       It is important to involve all partners in such an ambitious project, and in particular organisations, such as Unesco, the European Science Foundation and the Association of European Universities and last but not least industry. This investment in paneuropean (and international) cooperation among young scientists should facilitate the medium and long term integration of east and west European research structures and should also facilitate and encourage the creation of common resources or the pooling of such on a European scale. The ESF’s EUROCORES mechanism to launch collaborative research programmes should be strengthened.

27.       It is relevant in this connection to quote one of the young scientists who participated in the Gdansk Forum, Ms Oksana Yaremchuk of the Ukraine. She pointed out the following issues as particularly important for young scientists from European countries with economies in transition:

28.       It is evident that such observations must guide our drawing up of policy measures to build a European research and higher education area.

29.       Mr van Duinen (ESF) stated in Gdansk that: “The diversity of Europe, the differences in research traditions, approaches, reasoning are together a rich source of the kind of inspirational variety which research and technology requires to progress”. The investment in a new generation of talented scientists with this multicultural experience would be an asset, not only for research, but also for business, administration and European co-operation.

30.       The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has also given some attention to this East-West question (but also to US-Europe relations) in Recommendation No. R (95) 7 which sets out measures to combat brain-drain in the sectors of higher education and research, essentially aiming at maintaining the higher education and research sectors of the countries affected by long-term (or definitive) loss of intellectual, scientific and cultural resources, by improving their functioning and by promoting all forms of constructive international co-operation. Among the measures included are also a series of proposals for incentives specifically aimed at students and young graduates.

Mobility of scientific researchers

31.       Mobility is seen as an important method of exchanging information, skills and experience between universities, the academic world, and industry, as well as between different countries and scientific institutions. It may also serve as a temporary solution for young researchers in countries where funding for research is insufficient.

32.       A common problem in many Central and East European countries is that as soon as legal and political restrictions on international mobility were lifted there, many researchers left for Western Europe and the United States. That was especially evident among young researchers who have looser family ties and better language skills than the elder generation. Many West European countries also suffer from a similar ‘brain drain’ to the United States, which in economic terms means that the educational efforts of one country are being harvested by another. Instead of falling into the temptation of putting back barriers to this mobility (as it seems to be the case in the Russian Federation) we should try to create the appropriate conditions for young scientists to stay in (or to return to) their countries of origin.

33.       Mobility in itself is also hampered by a number of obstacles of a different nature. One is the diversity of national diploma systems, even within the EU, which makes them hardly comparable and compatible. To improve the situation, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy have reached an agreement to harmonise the structure of their diplomas (undergraduate degree, a short master level degree, and a longer doctoral degree), to serve as a first step in harmonisation within the entire EU.

34.       One further barrier to mobility concerns mutual recognition of qualifications in Europe. Despite repeated efforts of the Council of Europe, Unesco, and the EU, notably within the framework of the Lisbon Recognition Convention, adequate recognition on advanced qualifications may still pose problems to qualified young researchers. Besides and despite the manifold funding schemes, most of them do not have a universal territorial scope.

35.       The increasing differentiation of sciences is another obstacle, making many research positions ‘tailored’ to the specific needs of a particular organisation. Such ‘craftsmanship’ makes it increasingly difficult for researchers to change jobs and adapt themselves to new workplaces. However, this is also to a large extent dependant on a researcher’s own flexibility and attitudes to changing his or her research profile, which is often needed to adapt to the development of science or to the labour market trends.

36.       There are many very successful mobility schemes of which the EU Marie Curie Fellowships scheme should be particularly mentioned since its fellowship association was the co-organiser of the First European Forum of Young Researchers mentioned above. But private, national and regional schemes still play the main role although it would be impossible to mention them all in this report.

37.       A new Unesco initiative was presented at the Gdansk Conference; the European Advanced Seminars for Young Scientists (EASYS). Its aim is to bring together eminent senior scientists in key fields of contemporary science with a limited number of young scientists of proven talent for research in order to develop a free and direct exchange of ideas on the scientific and societal challenges evoked by specific scientific research problems of paramount importance. EASYS will tackle issues reconciling science, technology and social disciplines. Both emerging scientific disciplines and interdisciplinary problems fundamental for the future development of science and society will be considered.

38.       Such seminars will emulate the well-known model of master classes in arts. Special attention will need to be given to the selection of young scientists from Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) and Mediterranean countries, thus contributing to filling the gaps not only between generations but also between sub-regions. It is clear that these seminars will be complementary tools to various instruments of intellectual cooperation already in action. In such a way, EASYS might develop into a paneuropean network of summer universities.

39.       This initiative may be considered as an important component of a “European partnership in science”, a process aiming at the integration of the scientific communities of Western and Eastern Europe. Some features of this process and the necessity of its acceleration and diversification were recently discussed by CEEC Ministers and senior experts in science policies, during three meetings initiated by several countries from the CEEC region and organized by Unesco’s Venice Office, UVO-ROSTE in Budapest (29 June 1999), Paris (6 November 1999) and Venice (15-16 May 2000) together with the Directorate General for Research of the European Commission and the ESF.

40.       The Unesco project of European Advanced Seminars for Young Scientists is particularly designed to foster not only Europe-wide, but also transatlantic and Euro-Mediterranean short-term mobility. This and other similar mobility schemes should also be used in making Europe an attractive research area for scientists from abroad, helping all the participants to appreciate Europe’s rich and diversified academic and cultural heritage, as well as the diversity and scope of its science base.

41.       The Council of Europe has given particular attention to the question of academic mobility for many years through different studies, recommendations, conventions and the creation of a network of academic recognition and mobility centres. One of the studies in particular addressed the mobility of post-graduate students and young researchers. One of the recommendations aiming at fostering mobility of researchers in Europe (Recommendation No. R (90) 15) should be mentioned in this context. It recommends in particular:

42.       Other Committee of Ministers’ recommendations in this field are on the mobility of academic staff (Recommendation No. R (85) 21), on academic mobility (Recommendation No. R (95) 8) and on regional academic mobility (Recommendation No. R (96) 7).

Conclusions

43.       In view of the above, it is evident that if the Parliamentary Assembly is to give its support to the EU initiative of creating a European Research Area, this must be on condition that this area has a special component regarding young researchers and that it be on a paneuropean level. The proposal is therefore to complement the EU initiative by promoting a “paneuropean space for young scientists”.

44.       The recruitment of talented young people to science and technology is of crucial importance for our societies’ competitiveness and well-being. The science professions must be made more attractive and the development of a European status for young researchers should foster mobility and co-operation.

45.       It is the task of governments to assess the recommendations put forward in this report and to take appropriate action for rejuvenating science in Europe. Enhanced co-operation between the young scientists of Europe and their colleagues from abroad will reinforce this goal.

 

Appendix I

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Recommendation No. R (2000) 8
of the Committee of Ministers to member states
on the research mission of universities


(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers
on 30 March 2000,
at the 705th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

 

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe,

Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members and that this aim can be pursued, notably through common action in cultural matters;

Having regard to the European Cultural Convention;

Having regard to the following Recommendations by the Committee of Ministers to member states:

- No. R (85) 21 on mobility of academic staff;

- No. R (90) 15 with a view to fostering the mobility of researchers;

- No. R (95) 7 on the brain drain in the sectors of higher education and research;

- No. R (95) 8 on academic mobility;

- No. R (96) 7 on regional academic mobility;

Having regard to the Joint Declaration on the European Higher Education Area, adopted in Bologna on 19 June 1999 by thirty-one European ministers of education;

Considering that universities have a mission of free inquiry and the transmission of knowledge through linking research and teaching;

Having regard to the unique ability of universities to combine different types of research and to provide expertise to all sectors of human activity;

Considering that the research capacity of universities is vital to cultivating the human mind, to raising people's level of qualification, to building democratic citizenship, and to sustaining a culture of understanding and integration, of co-operation and peace;

Considering that the advancement of knowledge requires strong co-ordination of research and teaching;

Having regard to the contribution of universities, through their wide variety of disciplines, to the preservation, development and enrichment of the European cultural heritage;

Considering that universities, while sharing the responsibility for academic research with industry and specialised institutions, have a particular responsibility for the development of knowledge through free and fundamental research, for the training of new researchers and for the maintenance of a healthy balance between the different types of research;

Considering autonomy and sufficient funding to be of the utmost importance for universities to fulfil their research mission;

I. Recommends that the governments of member states:

a. be guided in their policy with regards to university research by the principles set out in the appendix to this Recommendation;

b. promote implementation of these principles by the relevant governmental agencies and the universities in so far as the competence to make decision in research matters lies with the universities;

c. ensure that this Recommendation is distributed as widely as possible among all persons and bodies concerned;

II. Instructs the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to transmit this Recommendation to the governments of those States Party to the European Cultural Convention which are not members of the Council of Europe.

 

Appendix to Recommendation No. R (2000) 8

1. General policy considerations

1.1. Universities provide a research base vital for the solution of problems of public concern, even where markets for the solutions do not yet exist. Governments should offer incentives to conduct free and fundamental research.

1.2. As a rule, universities should conduct research in a broad range of disciplines and ensure well-organised contacts with active research in disciplines in which they offer study programmes without a strong research base. Governments should encourage each institution to develop a specific research profile while respecting the diversity of higher education institutions and their different missions, in full respect of the national systems of education and research and of the division of competence between the government and the universities.

1.3. Governments should seek to develop and maintain trust between the state and society on the one hand and the universities on the other and, notwithstanding the fundamental principle of university autonomy, to leave the universities with the responsibility for their choice of research priorities.

2. Links between university and non-university research

2.1. Governments should encourage universities and other public research institutions to intensify their research links. The historical or functional differentiation of research structures should be maintained only where it guarantees diversity of research approaches and has shown itself to be efficient.

2.2. In countries where research has been removed from the universities, governments should make efforts to re-establish the role of universities in research in order to help link research with research training.

2.3. Universities and other research institutions public or private should be encouraged by their authorities to co-operate more closely to form networks in order to make the best possible use of their resources and expertise. Governments might consider ways to encourage independent institutions, such as the academies of science in central and eastern Europe, to participate more effectively in research training and the teaching of advanced students, in co-operation with the universities which award research degrees.

3. Structure and organisation of research within higher education

3.1. In the setting of priorities for research, governments should, together with higher education institutions, ensure the academic freedom of individual researchers within the overall structure of the higher education system established by the competent state authorities.

3.2. The association of external research institutes with universities should be encouraged. They may act as technology transfer centres, centres of excellence and agencies for co-operation with industry.

3.3. Governments should encourage non-university institutions of higher education to create their own individual profile in diverse areas of research, in which they may play an important role in close co-operation with universities and other research institutions.

4. The link between teaching and research

4.1. In designing their higher education systems, governments should aim at creating conditions for universities where teaching and research are equally integrated into their organisation and structure.

4.2. The exact balance of research and teaching may vary according to the type of institution and between individuals within the same institution. Governments should ensure that permanent academic staff have duties in both teaching and research.

4.3. Universities should be encouraged to organise teaching and research in a diversified way, so as to allow the time spent by academics on each of them to vary. Academic staff members should be able to concentrate on research for a certain period, without unduly reducing the provision of study courses in the given field.

5. Training and recruitment of university researchers

Training

5.1. Governments and universities should be encouraged to review their research qualifications with a view to determining whether the present system meets the requirements of research training. In the case of countries which have a system of doctorate degrees at two different levels, the review should consider whether this system should be maintained.

5.2. Governments and universities should be encouraged to design their study programmes with a view to bringing students into close contact with research as early as possible.

5.3. Governments and universities should be encouraged to offer structured research training programmes to doctoral students. They, as well as young researchers, should be guaranteed proper supervision and training by experienced researchers in their field.

5.4. They should be encouraged to develop international contacts in their field. They should be given the time and resources necessary to conduct their own research while also gaining teaching experience by undertaking a reasonable teaching load.

5.5. Young research staff should be encouraged to apply for research grants within the general system of research funding.

5.6. New interdisciplinary approaches to research training call for intensive guidance and access to advanced research. Contacts with experienced experts from different disciplines and different universities should be encouraged.

5.7. Governments and universities should be encouraged to establish programmes to invite scientists from non-university research centres, scholars from abroad and experts from industry and the public sector to take an active part in the training of researchers in the university.

5.8. Joint appointments and part-time employment should be facilitated. Research theses could be prepared in co-operation with industry and public administrations.

Recruitment

5.9. As a rule, governments and universities should be encouraged to require that university teachers hold a degree from a university. Only institutions authorised to award doctoral degrees should have the right to confer the qualification entitling an academic to apply for a post of university professor, if such a separate qualification exists in the country concerned.

5.10. Governments and universities should be encouraged to base the recruitment and career advancement of teachers on competition and good performance in both teaching and research. Permanent posts in teaching and research should be advertised publicly. For these posts no nationality requirement should exist. A strategic aim of recruitment policy should be to identify and recruit candidates from outside as well inside the university.

5.11. Governments and universities should be encouraged to make every effort to make university research careers more attractive to women.

5.12. Governments and universities should encourage the mobility of university teachers between institutions at both national and international levels in the course of their career.

6. Working conditions in university research

6.1. Governments and universities should be encouraged to adopt rules governing university research reflecting the specific characteristics of scientific work and respecting the academic freedom of researchers at all stages of their careers.

6.2. Employment conditions at university should provide competitive incentives to attract and retain creative and innovative research staff.

6.3. Permanent tenure should be subject to individual assessment.

6.4. Governments and universities should be encouraged to make available appropriate facilities and administrative support.

6.5. Academic staff should be able to benefit from sabbatical leave and travel grants after a specific length of time and on the basis of performance and results obtained.

6.6. The rights and duties of university researchers should be clearly defined by legislation and/or university statutes.

7. Ethical issues in research

7.1. Governments and universities should be encouraged to adopt basic ethical guidelines applicable to all researchers. Such guidelines should include basic ethical principles, such as the respect of human dignity and life, the rights of others and of the environment, and commit themselves to following rules of good practice in scientific research. Some of the guidelines, such as rules against plagiarism and falsifying results, should be common to all disciplines, whereas others should be developed separately for individual disciplines or groups of disciplines.

7.2. Universities should be encouraged to adopt transparent rules concerning their ethical positions in research at all levels: local, national or European. These should also comprise rules for the assessment of research procedures.

7.3. Research training should aim to develop sensitivity to ethical considerations in young researchers.

7.4. Governments should be encouraged to provide an adequate legal framework for ethics in research footnote 1, including issues such as data protection, abuse of data and scientific fraud, animal protection and bioethics. These regulations may limit the freedom of research in the interest of the rights of others or prevent the risk of manipulating human life.

7.5. Governments should encourage research funding agencies to reject morally and legally doubtful proposals, submit questionable projects to ethical examination, refrain from funding projects if ethical standards are not assured and further research on ethical issues.

7.6. Universities should be encouraged to be sensitive to ethical problems and to warn governments and the public when research identifies negative consequences of certain developments (such as threats to human life or the environment), as well as to suggest possible lines of action.

8. Transparency of research results and issues of trust

8.1. Universities should be encouraged to report on major research results to their governments and the general public and to make visible the possible social impact of the results. By advertising and explaining progress in research, the universities will increase the awareness of their research mission.

8.2. Governments should be encouraged to define, in co-operation with the research community, standards for publishing research results. All results of university research financed from public sources should be published at some stage. Universities are encouraged to conclude clear agreements with founders regarding confidentiality of results, which may impose a temporary delay in publication.

9. Funding

9.1. Universities are accountable for their use of public funding. Governments should be encouraged to maintain responsibility for a substantial portion of the funding of university research. Only this will enable the universities to fulfil their research mission.

9.2. While ensuring a good basic public funding for research, governments should encourage universities to seek supplementary funding from other sources, public or private. The university should always be in the position of an actor in the competitive procedures of applying for research funds.

9.3. Governments should be encouraged to grant public and private institutions, such as foundations, tax relief or other concessions to support their contribution to university research. Industry should be encouraged to create or sponsor chairs in universities.

9.4. Governments should encourage universities, in accepting commissioned research, to give priority to those activities which supplement or strengthen their central mission in research and teaching. Universities should offer practical support to their researchers in setting up links to, and drawing up contracts with, industry.

9.5. Funding of research should as a general rule be subject to independent expert evaluation. Evaluation by peer review should be supplemented by other criteria according to established standards. Evaluation should also compare the original research objectives with the final results.

9.6. Regardless of the specific national structures in higher education and research, governments should be encouraged to maintain autonomous research funding agencies, or to create such agencies where they do not yet exist. Their task should be to allocate research funds as distinct from regular institutional budgets.

9.7. Public funding of research should be performance-related and based on projects proposed. The primary criteria for funding should be originality and quality.

9.8. Governments should encourage universities to define clear rules for accepting, managing and accounting for funds from outside the university. These should cover in particular the contribution of commissioned research to university overhead costs, the allocation of income from intellectual property, and the status of staff and students employed under contract.

 

1. See the Council of Europe’s legal instruments on bioethics, data protection and animal welfare.

Appendix II

European Forum of Young Scientists

Gdansk 7-9 October 2000

Report to Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

Committee on Science and Technology

Executive Summary

The Forum of 54 young scientists from 22 countries held lively discussions about the problems and opportunities facing science, and young scientists in particular, in Europe. Several key themes were identified. These included: the need to make European research careers more attractive; the importance of more flexible research, funding and career structures, in particular greater autonomy for scientists earlier in their careers; the need to recognise and address the particular problems of Eastern European research mobility and funding; and the requirement for greater public involvement in, and appropriation of, science.

Six policy proposals were developed, of which the two main priorities are:

Develop more flexible research structures and funding schemes: A European postdoctoral status, and accompanying incentives for institutions to participate, funded at European level.

Address the particular problems of Eastern European research mobility: Shorter PhD degrees and mutual recognition of degrees, with transitional concessions for Eastern European scientists, and assistance with setting up new infrastructure.

European Forum of Young Scientists, Gdansk 7-9 October 2000

The European Forum of Young Scientists met for two days prior to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Committee on Science and Technology Conference on Science and Technology in Europe: Prospects for the 21st Century. The Forum was organised by UNESCO and the Made Curie Fellowship Association, in association with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Technical University of Gdansk, and AIESEC Poland.

The Forum involved 54 participants from 22 countries. Interesting presentations from invited speakers were followed by lively debate among the young scientists present. Several key themes were recurrent through the sessions. This brief report summarises these themes and the policy implications, and concludes with a short list of policy priorities.

Summary of Key Themes

Poor attractiveness of research careers and insufficient opportunities offered by Europe to its young scientists represent a potential risk for the future of research and development in Europe. Independently of the financial effort need to overcome the increasing gap in European research budgets with respect to the US a few practical measures could improve the integration of young scientists and make them more adapted to the changing science and technology labour market.

Science careers in Europe need to be made more attractive. This is partly a question of funding and salaries, but also connected to the level of autonomy experienced by young researchers. Researchers need to become independent at an earlier stage in their careers in order to take advantage of their creativity and productivity.

There are great differences among areas, in terms of training and in terms of opportunities for individuals and requirements of industry: there is significant unemployment in some areas and major skill shortages in others. Mobility is still limited in Europe today: it is encouraged by EU programmes, but is driven primarily by job seekers rather than by industry, except for a select few. More information about jobs and opportunities and about the range of individual skills and qualifications available within Europe could help to reduce rigidities in the system on both sides.

Although greater mobility is clearly potentially beneficial for individual researchers, for home institutions and states mobility can mean a brain drain if scientists do not return home - this is particularly acute in Eastern Europe. To combat brain drain, incentives are needed to encourage mobile researchers to return to their home countries. Greater assistance for individual researchers to cover the transitional costs of returning should be considered, and incentives are vital to encourage home countries and institutions to welcome returning scholars and ease the transition between different research cultures and systems. Linking fellowships to assistance with establishing research facilities on return, particularly to countries with less developed research infrastructure, should form a key part of this policy.

Greater knowledge exchange is required between academia and industry, at all levels. Academia should be producing graduates and postgraduates with the skills required for industry and research, but for this to happen it is vital that industry be engaged in informing academia of its rapidly evolving needs. Creating national and European industry advisory boards for universities should be considered; and greater involvement of industrial representatives at the individual university level should be encouraged, especially with respect to curriculum development and audit. Greater flexibility in academic career structures and evaluation should be introduced in order to allow academics to collaborate with industry and government, to mutual benefit, without jeopardising their positions.

There is also need for greater individual awareness of the requirement for wider skills and lifelong learning, as well as a greater willingness on the part of universities to train undergraduate and doctoral students in these skills, such as teamwork, leadership, and project management. Knowledge may be key, but personal and business skills are also essential. The ability to adopt a multidisciplinary approach will become increasingly valuable and the training offered by universities should enable this.

There is an increasing tendency towards public mistrust of science and of political decision making related to science and technology development. This must be addressed through greater appropriation of science by the public, and through scientists becoming more accountable to society. Developments in biotechnology give a clear example both of the need for greater public integration into scientific decision-making and of the need for education about risks and tradeoffs. It also illustrates the misuse of information technology for propaganda on both sides of a debate and the influence of economic power in shaping the research agenda. Scientists must no longer allow themselves, or be allowed, to be used in the service of economic or military power independent of ethical and environmental considerations, but must rather serve the society. For this to occur, society must be empowered to cope with high volumes of often conflicting information and must be given fora to make public views heard. This can be achieved through increased emphasis on basic science education to enhance public understanding of science, and through establishing structures for informed public participation in scientific agenda setting and decision-making. Scientists must form better public communication structures to disseminate information about cutting-edge research and its implications.

Proposed Action Points

There was a general view that policy needs to be more focussed on particular problems such as those identified above. The following concrete proposals arose from the Forum discussions.

Develop more flexible research structures and funding schemes. Scientists should have more control over the financial planning of their projects. A postdoctoral status defined at a European level, superseding national structures, would allow employment of mobile postdocs in countries where the currently rigid national system prevents this. Incentives for institutions to participate will be required and enable access to certain networks or funding opportunities. These advantages should be funded at European level.

Address the particular problems of Eastern European research mobility. Better harmonization, and in particular shorter PhD degrees and mutual recognition of degrees, is a priority. A European database of science and technology opportunities for young scientists, including fellowships and academic and industrial positions should be established. Obstacles to mobility should be removed, such as delays in providing visas. There should be short-term transitional concessions for Eastern European scientists, for example where average age of graduation is higher, or infrastructure weaker, than in the West. These inequalities should be taken into consideration in awarding grants and some should be earmarked for Eastern European scientists. It is also important to encourage Western European countries to participate fully in existing schemes (such as INTAS) with Eastern European countries.

Give scientists more independence earlier in their careers through funding targeted to excellent young scientists, awarded on merit, to create research leaders. This requires funding for networking and training and further support to set up labs, in particular in Eastern Europe.

Return grants should be introduced, paid partly to the institution and partly to individuals, provide additional incentives for mobility, help avoid "brain drain"), and fund new research facilities.

Encourage effective promotion of a European research area open to scientists of all origins, by removing the administrative and statutory barriers that make transnational careers very difficult (for instance, in terms of insurance or pension schemes, or of equivalence of diplomas for certain countries). An overall increase in the percentage of GDP invested in research is also required, part of which should be devoted to improve salaries to be competitive with industry and scientific salaries in other nations, so as to attract the best scientists to research careers.

Support wider skills training in postgraduate degrees to ensure that doctoral candidates are fully equipped to meet the needs of career building for consulting and industry. Additional funding will be crucial, but minimum requirements for training provided by host institutions for accessing existing mobility grants should also be considered.

Main Priorities

The Forum is aware of the need to prioritise objectives for political purposes. The general consensus is that the most urgent changes are:

1)       Developing more flexible research structures and funding schemes: A European postdoctoral status, and accompanying incentives for institutions to participate funded at European level.

2)       Addressing the particular problems of Eastern European research mobility: Shorter PhD degrees and mutual recognition of degrees, with transitional concessions in funding criteria for Eastern European scientists, and assistance with setting up new infrastructure.

In conclusion, the participants in the Forum valued greatly the opportunity to meet to discuss these important issues and to present this document to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Committee on Science and Technology. The Forum feels that mechanisms for input by young scientists into policy nationally, and at European level, should be reinforced and their development supported.

Reporting committee: Committee on Culture, Science and Education

Reference to committee: Doc. 8324 and Reference No. 2363 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