science & society

EMBO reports VOL 5 | NO 12 | 2004 ©2004 EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY ORGANIZATION

analysis

1120

It might not be long before one ofEuropean scientists’ dearest wishescomes true: the creation of a European

Research Council (ERC) to support basicresearch. If the European Commission(EC) sticks to its word, it will propose, dur-ing the discussion for the 2007–2011budget, a massive increase in funds forresearch, along with the creation of anERC to dispense money for fundamentalresearch. Not only has this ‘brainchild’ ofthe scientists been fully embraced by theEC, but it has also met with largely posi-tive responses from European ministersfor research and even various heads ofgovernments (Breithaupt H (2004) Pushfor innovation. EMBO Rep 5: 339–341).“The ERC was at some point a heresy butit is now an accepted part of the solution,”said Jean-Patrick Connerade, President ofEuroScience, referring to the evolution ofthe ERC over the past 3 years. Thisbecame obvious at the recent conferenceon an ERC, which was organized by thenewly founded Initiative for Science inEurope (ISE) at the United NationsEducational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO) headquarters inParis, France. Whereas at the same loca-tion 20 months ago, the EuropeanCommissioner for Research, PhilippeBusquin, adamantly refused to use theterm ‘ERC’, this time it fell to AchilleasMitsos, Director General of the EC’sDirectorate-General for research, todefend the ERC, its autonomy and itsscope against other competing interests.

But not every detail has been workedout yet and not every possible roadblockon the way to an ERC has been removed.It is still not clear what the legal setting foran ERC will be—whether as an executive

agency of the EC, as a so-called ‘article171’ organization set up by the EC with agoverning board of representatives fromnational governments, or as a new trulyEuropean institution that is not account-able to, or dependent on, either the EC orindividual governments. This issue willpredominantly affect the autonomy of afuture ERC, and, particularly, whether itwill be at ‘arm’s length’ from the EC andother political influences. Another impor-tant question is the budget. Although thefigure of €2 billion has been tossedaround in various debates, Mitsos warnedthat the eventual outcome might be signif-icantly lower. “We have a real problemhere, the insufficient means,” he said.“Don’t assume that only because thecommissioner said it, you will get thisincrease in money,” because that is up tothe Council of Ministers and the EuropeanParliament to decide.

Even more important is the questionof whether an ERC would be enoughto solve some of the most persistent

problems that plague scientific researchin Europe and hinder its internationalcompetitiveness. These include: geronto-cratic hierarchies in the universities andresearch councils of many countries thatresist any change; the lack of positionsand independence for younger scientists;political interests that interfere with sci-entific agendas; the dismal state of uni-versities in many countries; and the lackof coordination at the European level.Taken together, these problems have con-vinced more than 450,000 youngresearchers from Europe that they are bet-ter off in the USA. “The world is notstanding still while we talk and Europehas in the meantime successfully balka-nized its research,” Connerade comment-ed. In addition, Europe faces increasingcompetition from other areas of the worldthat are rapidly catching it up. “I amafraid the decision to establish an ERCwill not be taken in 25 European capitals

but in China, India or the USA,” said PeterNijkamp, Chairman of the NetherlandsOrganization for Scientific Research(NOW) in The Hague. “We have knownabout the problem since the 1970s butnothing happened.”

The extent of the problem was furthersupported by Andrew Dearing, SecretaryGeneral of the European IndustrialResearch Management Association(EIRMA) in Paris, France, who com-plained that it was embarrassing forindustry representatives to tell theirAmerican colleagues and politicians thatthere is no organization in Europe that isresponsible for basic research at aEuropean level. The ERC might changethis, but Mitsos warned of several obsta-cles that might still hinder its realization.A confused agenda, soft consensus onimportant details and artificial divergenceon others might lead to something otherthan what the scientific communitywants. Another problem that he highlight-ed was oversimplification, through mak-ing a clear division between basic andapplied research, and demanding thatexcellence should be the only decisivefactor for handing out grants. Last, but notleast, money remains an important prob-lem. “We have here a major difficulty …and that is that the Lisbon agenda has not been followed by means,” he said.“You know, there are two discussions: one among the research ministers and one among the finance ministers. The one

Beyond an ERCA European Research Council might soon become a reality. However, it would not necessarily

solve all, or even most, of the problems in basic research in Europe.

Although the figure of €2 billionhas been tossed around invarious debates, Mitsos warnedthat the eventual outcomemight be significantly lower

…universities do not yet knowhow to face the fact that ERCgrantees would be independentof university funding

…[an ERC] would be just thebeginning, rather than theculmination of efforts

science & society

©2004 EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY ORGANIZATION EMBO reports VOL 5 | NO 12 | 2004

analysis

1121

among the research ministers goes verysmoothly.”

While an ERC moves closer toreality, other players in theEuropean research system are

also staking their claims in this new fund-ing mechanism. The Association ofEuropean Heads of Research Councils(EUROHORCs) has submitted a docu-ment to the EC that lays out its vision of anERC. Nijkamp presented these recom-mendations at the Paris conference,which prompted Julio Celis, SecretaryGeneral of the Federation of EuropeanBiochemical Societies (FEBS), to questionwhether the EUROHORCs were appropri-ate representatives for the scientific com-munity. Most of their recommendationswere in line with the demands of the sci-entists, but the comments made byNijkamp on how to avoid oversubscrip-tion of an ERC—by introducing nationalquotas, by a de facto return to the dreadedjuste retour principle, by considering thepublication and prize records of an appli-cant, which would predominantly favoursenior scientists, or by focusing on selectedresearch topics, which would completelycounter the demand that an ERC shouldbe open to all sciences—along with hishints that autonomy would not beabsolutely necessary, prompted varioussharp rebukes from the floor. “We mustnot even think of some sort of influenceby politicians on the research agenda,”Mitsos reprimanded. “The EC will neverpropose an ERC that is not autonomous,based on excellence and has nationalquotas.”

Even more emphatic was BarryHolland from the Université Paris-Sud,France, who sharply attacked Nijkamp—calling the EUROHORCs ‘Eurohawks’—and claimed that this was exactly themindset that has led European researchinto its present dismal state. Instead, heproposed that an ERC should focus itsefforts on younger people and liberatetheir neglected scientific talent. “National

governments miserably failed to supportyoung researchers,” Holland said. “AnERC would be a wonderful opportunity toaddress this problem that national govern-ments and research councils cannot do.”

Although the national research coun-cils, as represented by the EUROHORCs,are clearly worried about losing influenceon the European research agenda, univer-sities face even greater challenges. EricFroment, President of the EuropeanUniversity Association, was unsure oftheir role when presenting the views of hisorganization on an ERC. It became appar-ent from his talk that universities do notyet know how to face the fact that ERCgrantees would be independent of univer-sity funding. Moreover, although heacknowledged that universities as institu-tions need to improve, Froment was notable to tell the audience how they coulddo so. His presentation prompted anItalian delegate to the conference to com-ment privately that it is exactly this mind-set at many European universities that hinders any progress.

A more sober analysis of how an ERC will impact the European research scene came from Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker, President of the DeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft (Germany’s largestresearch council) and Chairman ofEUROHORCs. Acknowledging that anERC would have an impact on nationalresearch councils, he warned that itshould neither ignore nor attempt toreplace national funding. An ERC with abudget of €2 billion would still pale incomparison to the funds that are spentthrough national research councils, whichdirectly invest about €18 billion in basicresearch, or around €40 billion if indirectinvestments are also taken into account.“And this far exceeds the budget of theEC,” Winnacker said. Instead of replacingthem with a European funding mecha-nism, an ERC should instead focus onareas where national research councilsare less strong, to avoid doubling efforts.“Careful thought must be given to therelationship of an ERC with existing coun-cils,” he commented. “They have to help.They have to set the standards. … A lot ofexperience is to be gained from theirexperience.”

Nevertheless, Winnacker foresees thatan ERC will markedly transform theEuropean university system as it will forcethem to compete for the best scientists.

But he also warned the gathered scientiststhat they should not take an ERC for grantedand will therefore need many allies tomake it a reality in the face of resistancefrom various European finance ministries.This would also involve the nationalresearch councils. “EUROHORCs tries tobe a catalyst, a midwife,” Winnackerexplained, “without ever forgetting thatthe ERC must be an instrument in its ownright.” But the fact that Winnacker, a lead-ing molecular biologist in Germany, willsoon step down from his position as thePresident of EUROHORCs and will besucceeded by Nijkamp, did not necessarilyreassure some attendants that his positionwill prevail in the association.

If the EC proposes the creation of anERC with a substantial budget, if theEuropean ministers of finance and

research and the heads of state agree, ifthe European Parliament accepts the pro-posal, and if it is created with sufficientautonomy from the commission andnational governments, then the scientistsof Europe will have had their way. Itwould be an outstanding success for theirlobbying efforts, as well as a large steptowards the vision of a European ResearchArea (ERA), which the formerCommissioner for Research, PhilippeBusquin, had been advocating when hetook office in 1999. However, it would bejust the beginning, rather than the culmi-nation of efforts. “The ERC is not the solu-tion to all problems,” said Reinder vanDuinen, President of the EuropeanScience Foundation. “It is an absolutelynecessary instrument for the ERA but it isnot the only one.” Winnacker also pointedout the need for more action at theEuropean level. “The ERC can only be oneof several funding instruments in the EUportfolio,” he said.

In fact, it is valid to question whether anew funding agency for basic research atthe European level would be enough tosolve all of the problems mentionedabove. Dearing actually formulated threegoals, which might go well beyond thescope of the ERC: to raise the attractive-ness of science in Europe so thatEuropean scientists return from the USA;

“Science policy has entered anew state”

…it is valid to question whether a new funding agency for basicresearch at the European levelwould be enough to solve all of[Europe’s] problems…

science & society

EMBO reports VOL 5 | NO 12 | 2004 ©2004 EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY ORGANIZATION

analysis

1122

to raise the attractiveness of Europe todraw scientists from other parts of theworld; and to raise the overall level ofresearch investment in Europe. An ERCthat is just a funding mechanism might notbe able to achieve this. It was Iain Mattaj,present Scientific Director and the desig-nated Director General of the EuropeanMolecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) inHeidelberg, Germany, who askedwhether an ERC should fulfil a furtherrole: that of formulating a Europeanresearch strategy?

At present, there is clearly no suchstrategy. Science policy is formulated inBerlin, London, Paris, and other capitals,and to some extent at the EC, but none ofthese take a truly international outlook onbasic research, on the career and jobprospects of scientists across Europe, onthe role and function of large Europeanresearch infrastructure and facilities (suchas EMBL, the European Laboratory forParticle Physics (CERN) and the EuropeanSpace Agency), and on how to removehurdles to the mobility of researchers. Thesuccessful creation of an ERC mightprompt European scientists to push foreven greater change, as they realize thatthey can make a difference. As JoséMariano Gago, Chair of the ISE and a for-mer minister of research and technologyin Portugal, summarized, “Science policyhas entered a new state,” which is increas-ingly driven by the scientists themselves.Catherine Dargemont, President ofSauvons La Recherche (Let’s SaveResearch), the organization that forcedthe French Government to take back itsannounced cuts to science and researchearlier this year, reassured the audiencethat if there is a will, there is a way: “Asscientists we should not underestimateour capacity to influence our politicians.”

Holger Breithauptdoi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400306

In 1989, David Strachan from theLondon School of Hygiene and TropicalMedicine, UK, proposed an intriguing

explanation for the sudden rise in hayfever and allergic diseases in developedcountries during the previous fewdecades. His theory, later nicknamed the‘hygiene hypothesis’, linked allergies tohygiene and household size. Based onobservations that children in large fami-lies were less likely to develop hay feverthan those with fewer siblings, Strachandeclared that “declining family size,improved household amenities and higherstandards of personal cleanliness” had alldecreased the number of infections thatchildren contracted, which might haveled to more allergic diseases (Strachan,1989). Before long, his hypothesisbecame synonymous with the belief thatthe trend towards better hygiene andcleanliness was the main cause for the rel-atively recent emergence of asthma, hayfever and other allergies.

At that time, immunological researchseemed to support the idea that a naiveimmune system—that is, one that was notpermanently challenged by infectious orparasitic organisms—was likely to over-react to more benign objects in the envi-ronment. Work over the past 15 years,however, has revealed that the real pic-ture is much more complicated. Recentresearch indicates that the risk of develop-ing allergies is not necessarily caused by alack of bugs and parasites in the environ-ment per se, but rather by a lack of certainorganisms that have, over the course ofevolution, trained our immune system be

more tolerant. This suggests that the timehas come to rethink, and rename, thehygiene hypothesis.

When researchers first tried tounderstand the link betweeninfectious and allergic diseases,

it seemed logical to focus on one particularcomponent of the immune system: T-helper(Th) cells. Th1 cells normally fight bacterialor viral infections, but also have a role inautoimmune disease. By contrast, Th2 cellsdeal with parasitic infections and mediateallergic reactions. Allergy researchers ini-tially believed that reduced exposure tomicroorganisms failed to prime the Th1response, which then led to overcompensat-ing Th2 activity and resulted in allergies.However, “at exactly the same time, a small-er number of people working in the field ofautoimmunity, where diseases are of coursemostly mediated by Th1 lymphocytes, wereproducing the reverse hypothesis,” saidGraham Rook, a professor at the Centre forInfectious Diseases and International Healthat the Royal Free and University MedicalSchool in London, UK. “They were actuallysaying there’s not enough Th2 activityaround now, we need more Th2 to down-regulate the Th1 that’s causing multiple scle-rosis, type 1 diabetes, and Crohn’s disease.”In fact, while allergy specialists had beenpreoccupied with explaining the suddenrise of asthma and allergic disorders, theprevalence of autoimmune diseases, such asmultiple sclerosis, type 1 diabetes andinflammatory bowel disorders, had risenjust as dramatically.

This, in turn, put paid to the theory thatTh2 cells were directly responsible andprompted researchers to look elsewhere.“What one needs is a hypothesis that canexplain a simultaneous increase in Th2-mediated diseases, Th1-mediated diseasesand also inflammatory bowel disease,which is mostly Th1-mediated but possibly

Should auldacquaintance be forgot…The ‘hygiene hypothesis’ is less about cleanliness, and more about the

changes that humans have made to their lifestyle

… the time has come to rethink,and rename, the hygienehypothesis

It is still not clear what the legalsetting for an ERC will be—whether as an executive agency ofthe EC … with a governing boardof representatives from nationalgovernments, or as a new trulyEuropean institution