T EUROPEAN R A : PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES · 2017. 12. 5. · THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA: PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES LERU RESPONSE TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH

AREA: PRIORITIES FOR

RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES

LERU RESPONSE TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION CONSULTATION:

"THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA FRAMEWORK,

UNTAPPED AREAS OF POTENTIAL"

Universiteit van Amsterdam - Universitat de Barcelona - University of Cambridge - University of Edinburgh - Albert-

Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg - Université de Genève - Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg - Helsingin yliopisto

(University of Helsinki) - Universiteit Leiden - Katholieke Universiteit Leuven - Imperial College London - University

College London - Lunds universitet - Università degli Studi di Milano - Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München -

University of Oxford - Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris - Université Paris-Sud 11 - Université de Strasbourg -

Universiteit Utrecht - Universität Zürich

ADVICE PAPERNo.9 - DECEMBER 2011

LEAGUE OF EUROPEAN RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES

Authors

The paper has been edited and co-authored by Katrien Maes, Chief Policy Officer of LERU. Contributing authors are:Paul Ayris, Director of Library Services and Copyright Officer at University College LondonLeszek Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor of the University of CambridgeMichael Browne, Head of the European Research & Development Office at University College LondonSimon Buckle, Pro-Rector International at Imperial College LondonKurt Deketelaere, Secretary-General of LERUVincenzo Ferrari, Professor of Sociology of Law at the Università degli Studi di MilanoJadranka Gvozdanovic, Head of the Gender Equality Commission and Professor at Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg David Price, Vice-Provost for Research at University College LondonIain Thomas, Head of Life Sciences at Cambridge Enterprise, University of Cambridge

We thank the LERU Research Policy Committee, the LERU Communities and individuals at member universities who provided valu-able input for the paper and comments during the drafting process.

3

Executive Summary

LERU supports the concept and objectives of theEuropean Research Area (ERA) and has therefore pro-duced this paper as a response to the EuropeanCommission consultation on the subject. Based onextensive consultation with the LERU universities anddrawing on previous, updated and new LERU views, thispaper puts forward the priorities for EU research policyadvocated by some of Europe's leading research-inten-sive universities.

Following the structure of the EC consultation exercise,the paper delivers the following messages:

1. Researchers: Attracting talented individuals fromanywhere in the world to a research career in Europeis the single most crucial factor in developing aglobally competitive ERA.

• There can be no doubt that in order to attract thebest talents, Europe's focus must be on fosteringopportunities for excellent people in excellentenvironments starting with doctoral training andcontinuing throughout researchers' careers.

• In order to attract and support leading researchersthey have to be embedded in a vibrant researchenvironment providing good infrastructure andenabling strong interdisciplinary, internationaland intersectoral linkages.

• Researchers need to be offered clear career per-spectives which are built on well-designedemployment posts, well-structured career tracks,well-tailored career planning and professionaldevelopment and strong funding and facilitatingprocesses.

• New, innovative concepts for improving the struc-tures and processes of doctoral training have beendeveloping at a fast pace. Europe could strengthenthese efforts by supporting, in bottom-up fashion,innovative and excellence-driven doctoral schoolsor programmes.

• More transparency and easier procedures withregard to social security provisions and visa regu-lations for researchers are needed to support themobility of researchers into and inside of the EU.

2. Cross-border operations: Whilst cross-borderactors come in different shapes and sizes - from theindividual researcher level up to national and trans-national organisations - it is clear that insufficientcommitment of financial resources combined withmember states' (MS) reluctance to align and coordi-nate national resources will, unfortunately, contin-ue to prevent true integration of joint research pro-grammes.

• This has significant implications for Europe'sability to compete on the global stage and toaddress major societal challenges in a coordinat-ed way by exploiting research talent and capabili-ty across MS.

• LERU therefore recommends that the ERAFramework should work towards the develop-ment and implementation of an effective overar-ching EU strategy for research programmes,working closely with others such as the EIT toavoid double effort or conflicting priorities.

• Given the sporadic and, to some extent, disjointeddevelopment of the Joint Programming Initiatives(JPIs), it is clear that there is a need for high-levelpolicy coordination and direction on research,whilst ensuring that research is firmly integratedin societal grand challenges.

• Cross-border collaboration is important not onlyfor addressing societal challenges via top-downsteered research, but also to support investigator-driven, bottom-up research through funding pro-grammes that promote transnational mobilityand portability of grants (such as the Marie Curieand ERC schemes).

3. Research infrastructures: LERU is broadly support-ive of the idea of the development of Europeaninfrastructures in order to maintain EU competi-tiveness. In the draft consultation there is little inthe way of (a) specific proposal(s). As always the'devil is in the detail' and as such LERU is certainlywilling to discuss details in the future.

• Nevertheless, it is clear that EU research infrastruc-tures must not become the overarching and domi-nant EU research expenditure which often becomes

PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES

4


the case from a research funder's perspective. Thiscan be ensured by allowing for appropriate gover-nance controls, critical review and a built-inassumption of closure rather than maintenance inperpetuity of the infrastructure itself.

• In addition, high level controls on movementbetween budgets for all aspects of research fund-ing are needed to prevent redirection of addition-al resource to these developments. Unfortunately,a major concern has to be that member states'political imperatives can often drive the decision-making rather than the pure scientific need.Ultimately this would neither serve universities'nor the EU's long-term interests.

4. Knowledge transfer: Research-intensive universi-ties (RIUs) as the bedrock of internationally com-petitive research are hubs of creativity which attractresearch-intensive companies and investment intoa region and help to catalyse knowledge transfer(KT) and innovation in local businesses.

• KT offices at RIUs act as entrepreneurial centrespushing out research throughout the entire inno-vation network which develops around them,thus fulfilling a pro-active supply side function.They need to be able to operate in a permissive,incentive-led environment to allow flexible inter-action inside and outside of the university.

• Within the university a culture of KT awarenessand value should be actively developed; experi-enced KT offices and personnel are vital in thisprocess. The significant investment in trainingand recruitment for KT activities required of uni-versities needs to be justified in terms of the pos-sible return on investment.

• On the "pull" side, volume market demand needsto be increased in Europe. This can be promoted byproviding incentives that stimulate university-industry KT interaction, including such measuresas patent boxes, targeted tax incentives, leveragedfunding for commercial development of academicorigin technology and well-managed patent pools.

5. Open access: Access to research information mustbe optimised if the European research communityis to operate effectively. Open Access to researchoutput and data can help solve access problems andadvance the Open Science agenda.

• EU copyright legislation needs to be updated as

new publishing and research trends develop. Inaddition, the EU Database Directive should be re-examined so that it allows Open approaches todata management.

• Publication repositories are interoperable but faremptier than they should be. Mandates fordeposit linked to institutional strategies forresearch and publication can help in this respect.

• Data repositories are not sufficiently interopera-ble. A major issue to solve is who will be respon-sible for creating, managing and funding suchrepositories.

• There is a lack of coordination of open publica-tion and data policies across the EU memberstates and at the EU level. Given the differingnational contexts, the EU should play a facilitativerole, providing funding for infrastructure, as wellas consultation, advocacy and guidance in bestpractice, especially in the area of long-term digi-tal preservation of research outputs and data.

6. International dimension: Interaction and partner-ship with leading research expertise and talent any-where in the world is a high priority for research-intensive universities. More can be done at the EUlevel to leverage EU and MS resources for specific,large-scale collaborative programmes with researchfunding programmes across the world.

• The EU should step up its efforts to increaseinteraction with and attract top talent from estab-lished and strong emerging competitors to insti-tutions in Europe at all stages of a researchcareer. Obstacles to researcher mobility need tobe addressed.

• Financial pressures on RIUs in the current econom-ic times can be a serious threat. It is important tomake the most effective use of limited resources,for example through better alignment of EC andMS programmes, without however compromisingfunding levels or research excellence.

• ERA international activity focused on global chal-lenges is important and if carefully deployed cansupport EU policies in other areas. Care needs tobe taken not to promise more than can be deliv-ered and not to move away from funding open-ended frontier research.

7. Managing and monitoring the ERA partnership: Asingle market with free circulation of knowledge asits fifth freedom, needs a better structured andmanaged approach of issues. The experience withthe other four freedoms (persons, capital, services,goods) has shown there is no alternative.

• In the continued absence of effective MS action,the best option is to develop (next to a continuedselective use of non-legislative instruments), aframework directive which lays down the basicgoals, principles, limitations, instruments,actions and actors of the EU research and innova-tion policy.

• Such a framework directive must take into accountthe basic principles of EU action (in particularattribution, subsidiarity, proportionality and inte-gration) as leading principles for the developmentof a future EU research and innovation policy.

• Only in this way can a balanced policy in the fieldof research and innovation be developed whichcan achieve a well-managed and -monitoredEuropean Research Area, guaranteeing a free cir-culation of knowledge and respecting MemberState autonomy.

8. Gender: It is vitally important to make progresstowards ensuring that the research professionattracts and retains a larger proportion of women.The imperative stems not only from the argumentthat appreciation of diversity enables a more ade-quate assessment of quality, but also from an eco-nomic argument. Europe cannot afford to waste itstalents, particularly its hitherto most wasted femaletalent for research.

• Universities can take actions at the level of HRmanagement by providing good work-life bal-ance conditions for both women and men as well

as the other diversity groups and by taking specif-ic measures to support women's careers. In acompetitive research environment access to fund-ing is crucial for career advancement.

• An unwavering commitment of the universityleadership to gender equality is essential to trans-late gender equality plans into succesful actionsin all university divisions, faculties and depart-ments, giving due consideration to local andscholarly-field differences.

• Responsibilities also lie with research funders,governments and others to define frameworksand to promote or mandate gender equality andother quality-based diversity actions.

9. Ethics: Freedom is the golden rule of research and,as a consequence, an indisputable, fundamentaland internationally recognised right of researchers.Research should not be restricted by political agen-das and researchers should not normally berestricted as to what questions they can ask or whatfields they should research into. Yet this does notmean that such liberty can brook no limits.

• Communities can adopt specific sets of ethicalstandards or codes of practice to be applied intheir own research fields. Such rules should alsobe stated formally and widely disseminated.

• Academic institutions may entrust ethical com-mittees with the power to adjudicate on ethicalissues drawing their inspiration from freedom,self-criticism, precaution, respect and responsi-bility.

• Researchers should reflect on the impact that sci-entific assumptions, discoveries and researchproducts may have upon nature or society.

5

ADVICE PAPER - NO. 9, DECEMBER 2011

6


I. Introduction

1. This paper represents LERU's response to theEuropean Commission's consultation on "TheEuropean Research Area Framework, untappedareas of potential"1. As an organisation of some ofEurope's leading research-intensive universities(RIUs), LERU very much welcomes the consultation.In this paper we analyse what LERU universities con-sider to be the most important challenges and bot-tlenecks to achieving a more effective and efficientEuropean Research Area (ERA). We explain our uni-versities' guiding principles and main concernsrelating to ERA, hoping that the Commission willfind our views useful in developing concrete meas-ures aimed at the ultimate goal of achieving the "fifthfreedom" by creating a genuine single market forresearch and innovation in Europe, in which, asCommissioner Mairé Geoghegan-Quinn has point-ed out, "all actors, both public and private, can oper-ate freely, forge alliances and gather critical mass inorder to compete and cooperate on a global scale"and "which measures up to the major economic andsocietal challenges of our times"2.

2. There is broad agreement that research and innova-tion must be at the heart of the Europe 2020 agendato enable the European Union to escape its currenteconomic difficulties and foster a sustainable econo-my. As such, LERU supports the concept and theobjectives of the European Research Area andFramework. Within the EU, the potential benefits ofERA for RIUs and for society more generally stemfrom the following factors:

• Intensified competitive pressures for funding and students,driving improvements in productivity and qualityof education, research outputs and (more recent-ly) commercial and policy translation;

• Greater opportunities for collaboration to exploiteconomies of scale and scope, allowing larger-scale ini-tiatives with a wider range of expertise and largerinvestments in research infrastructure/facilities(e.g. ITER, CERN, ESA);

• Higher productivity/human capital growth from the dif-fusion of knowledge and techniques, e.g. within EU-wide collaborative projects and consortia andthrough enhanced mobility of students andresearchers;

• Enhanced resilience of the research sector at an EU level.Since RIUs are diverse and face differential fund-ing and other constraints, external shocks toresearch and education funding and priorities aretherefore likely to affect individual RIUs evenwithin a single Member State somewhat different-ly. The benefits of a diverse EU-wide set of RIUsare even greater, with resilience further enhancedby access to more and more diverse fundingsources and opportunities.

3. Naturally, universities need to weigh the potentialbenefits of ERA against disadvantages or difficultiesstemming from a variety of causes. In the documentaccompanying the on-line public consultation ques-tionnaire, the Commission has correctly identifiedthe major components that hamper the realisation ofERA and has even provided potential or actual solu-tions for problems. Following the structure of theconsultation exercise, we will analyse the potentialbenefits of and obstacles to realising ERA from theperspective of research-intensive universities for thefollowing key areas: 1) researchers, 2) cross-borderoperation of research actors, 3) research infrastruc-tures, 4) knowledge transfer, 5) open access, 6)international dimension, 7) managing and monitor-ing the ERA partnership, 8) gender and 9) ethics.Although these key areas are treated separately in thenext sections, it should be clear that they are inter-linked, that they share some common characteris-tics, and that consequently actions taken in one keyarea may have implications for others.

1 http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/consultation/era_consultation_en.htm

2 http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/consultation_commissioner_message.pdf

Attractive careers

4. The maintenance and development of a globallycompetitive research base in Europe depends funda-mentally on its ability to attract and retain the besttalents from Europe and beyond within a frameworkof structures, processes and opportunities thatresearchers are able to exploit to good effect.Although research careers can rarely compete withthe salaries of the private sector, it is important thatthey are seen to offer unique opportunities for well-supported research, creative freedom and personalsatisfaction. The key objectives of policy for researchcareers must be 1) to attract highly talented gradu-ates from the international pool of talent, 2) to sup-port the realisation of a researcher's potential forcreativity and 3) to maximize benefit to knowledge,learning and society. To do this, we must maximizethe potential for high achievement and provide anattractive career framework.

5. Realising the potential for high achievementdepends upon: • a research environment with a wide variety of

researchers working on cognate topics, stronglinks with other disciplines in a cross-disciplinarysetting, good international connections, cross-fertilisation of ideas from external researchers,and access to appropriate facilities.

• independence and responsibility at an early stage of aresearch career. These concepts should be embed-ded in the post by ensuring that for those early-career researchers not in receipt of a personal fel-lowship, space is formally created to support thedevelopment of personal creativity, and that thereare opportunities for all to undertake broaderresponsibilities and to apply for research grants tosupport their personal research.

6. An attractive and efficient research career frameworkrequires:• well-designed employment posts that are clearly

defined in relation to the structure of researchcareer progression, with clearly defined workingarrangements, standard and transparent proce-dures for appointment and an absence of dead-endpositions;

• well-structured career tracks that are designed for differ-ent purposes and provide a comprehensible careerframework, clearly sign-posted pathways withinand beyond the university and with the potential fornon-disruptive international experience;

• career planning and development procedures that sup-port, including relevant skills training, careercounseling that includes the option of non-aca-demic routes, arrangements for career develop-ment well adapted to the needs of the individual,and consideration of wider promotion criteria;

• strong funding and facilitating processes to ensure thatresearch posts are funded at internationally com-petitive levels; that funding is allocated and man-aged in such a way that universities can be flexiblein adapting to the needs of research andresearchers; and funding that covers full econom-ic costs so that the most successful research insti-tutions are not progressively impoverished bytheir success.

7. In a recent paper, LERU has analysed the main chal-lenges in meeting the objectives above. We have for-mulated key policy principles and have offeredexamples of good practice at LERU universities3.

8. It is important to note that the issues raised aboveare interwoven parts of a tapestry that determinesthe attractiveness of research careers. Whilst theLERU and other universities, in partnership with the

3 League of European Research Universities. (2010). Harvesting talent: Strengthening research careers in Europe.

Key points

• Focus on excellent opportunities for excellent people, starting with doctoral training and continuing through-out researchers' careers.

• Offer researchers clear career perspectives built on well-designed employment posts, well-structured careertracks, well-tailored professional development and strong funding and facilitating processes.

• Strengthen in bottom-up fashion, innovative and excellence-driven doctoral schools or programmes.• Enhance researcher mobility with more transparency and easier social security provisions and visa regulations.

II. Researchers

7


8


researchers they employ, work to discharge theirresponsibilities in ways that address these issues, notall the levers are in their hands. Patterns of responsi-bility vary amongst European countries, not leastbecause of the varying degrees of university autono-my. It is vital that there is strong interaction betweenstakeholders at both national and European levels ifwe are to enhance the standing and support for themost important pillar of any research system, name-ly the quality of the people working in it. Such inter-actions are also means whereby national initiativesand EU initiatives can be effectively implemented,for example in the area of institutional HR strategies,social security coordination, open recruitment,monitoring and information gathering and distrib-uting.

High quality doctoral training

9. Excellence in doctoral training is a vital factor ifEurope is to maintain a competitive advantage in theworld as a centre of intellectual and innovativeprowess. In a recent LERU paper we have stressedthe variety of skills that LERU universities aim todevelop in their doctoral candidates as a way ofpreparing them for a wide range of careers4. Thenumber of graduates at LERU universities that gointo non-academic careers is high, although it variessignificantly depending on the country and on theacademic field5. Moreover, it continues to grow,indicating there is a strong demand for the skills thata doctorate instills beyond the education sector.

10. Doctoral training aims to train researchers to thehighest level to become creative, critical andautonomous thinkers who push the boundaries ofknowledge. Besides deep research knowledge PhDcandidates should also develop a broad transferableskills set, which can include entrepreneurship train-ing when appropriate. To build the necessary com-petencies and prepare them for a research career,doctoral candidates are best embedded in a fertileand dynamic research environment. Such an envi-ronment generally has components of structuredand unstructured training and is often international,interdisciplinary and/or intersectorial, although thisshould not be perceived as a requirement for eachdoctoral candidate.

11. We support the EU's ambition to strengthen doctor-al training in Europe. We suggest that EU effortsshould be aimed at producing excellent researchersand on supporting and improving the organisationand management of doctoral training. ManyEuropean universities have for years, even decades,been implementing successful models for doctoralschools embedded in research-intensive environ-ments, with a variety of models reflecting the varyingneeds. New, innovative concepts for improving thestructures and processes of doctoral training arebeing developed at a fast pace. Europe couldstrengthen these efforts by supporting, in bottom-up fashion, innovative and excellence-driven doctor-al schools or programmes.

12. To ensure maximum impact and effectiveness, werecommend that EU actions consider (and fund) allstages of early career researchers (postdoctoral, doc-toral and possibly Master’s) and have scope for sec-onding academics to undertake leadership roles.

13. In fostering intersectoral links, all professional sec-tors should be given due consideration in accor-dance with discipline-related needs, i.e. not just pri-vate industry and business, but also government,charities, the public health care sector, etc.

14. Doctoral training programmes should not be over-regulated but permitted to develop promisingresearch lines without undue interference. Theyshould be evaluated on the quality of the researchand training environment, the potential of the par-ticipants, the quality of supervision of researchers,the opportunities for broad future career prospectsfor researchers, and on outputs, impact (includingmovement of researchers to professional sectors)and sustainability.

15. Quality standards, assurance, and enhancement fordoctoral training is the responsibility of existingstructures such as graduate schools or equivalentand are often tied to national QA. Doctoral, postdoc-toral and where appropriate Master's trainingshould be integrated with broad opportunities pro-vided across disciplines by existing structures (suchas transferable skills training and networking withresearchers in other fields) to provide incentives for

4 League of European Research Universities. (2010). Doctoral degrees beyond 2010: Training talented researchers for society.

5 In LERU universities the majority of PhD graduates typically take employment outside of academia. The figure can be less in some disciplines, but

goes up to over 80% in some cases.

choosing a research career and to ensure that allearly-stage researchers are embedded in strong anddiverse research environments. Early recognition ofresearch talent at the Master's level is important.

Mobility of researchers

16. Research is a global phenomemon, both at the insti-tutional and individual level. As the free circulationof knowledge has become as important a driver ofglobalisation as the movement of people, goods,services and capital, it is crucial that Europe doeseverything in its power to realise the so-called "fifthfreedom". Researchers are the prime vehicle throughwhich new ideas and cutting edge technology are cir-culated.

17. Unfortunately, researchers face some dauntingobstacles when they decide to spend time abroad toconduct their research. Besides the obvious issuesrelated to the job, housing, travel, partners and chil-dren, they need to worry about some not so obvious,technical, legalistic and complex arrangements cov-ering their health insurance, family benefits andpension rights.

18. Mobility in Europe is restricted by the employmentpolicies of some states, with the consequence thatresearchers do not benefit from the cross-fertilisa-tion of ideas and research links that open employ-ment creates. In addition, many research grants andfellowships are not easily portable or are not accessi-ble to non-residents and funding opportunities andrecruitment procedures are not always sufficientlyopen and transparent.

19. LERU has recently called attention to the need toimprove social security arrangements for mobileresearchers6. Keeping in mind that measures shouldnot over-regulate or over-prescribe, we propose thatat least minimal social protection should be grantedto early stage researchers who do not have the pro-fessional status of employee. We also ask for moretransparency and easier procedures when it comes tocoordinating social security benefits across the EUmember states. In addition, social security regula-tions should be interpreted and implemented inways that are compatible with the specificities of the

research profession. The development of a cross-border pension fund for researchers is an interestingconcept which would address a real albeit oftenunderrecognised problem for researchers.

20. Mobility is also increasingly of an intersectoralnature. While many researchers find employmentoutside the university immediately or soon afterobtaining a doctorate, it becomes increasingly diffi-cult at later career stages. Moreover, it is difficult forresearchers to return to an academic career after aperiod away from the university or even to manageshort-term exchanges. The development of an ERAwould benefit if the boundaries between industry/other sectors and university were more permeable.This requires the development of relationshipsbetween the sectors that are based on a vision of long-term, mutually beneficial cooperation, trust andrecognition of complementarities. It is important thatthe notion of intersectoral mobility should not beinterpreted narrowly as industry and enterprise, butapplied broadly to all non-academic sectors, includ-ing government, charities and not-for-profits.

6 League of European Research Universities. (2010). Improving the social security of internationally mobile researchers.

9


10


Background and policy context

21. It is clear that Europe faces a series of major societaland global challenges where cross-border collabora-tive research can play a key role in providing solu-tions which cannot be solved within national bor-ders alone. Current global challenges such as cli-mate and environmental change, energy, food secu-rity and population growth would benefit greatlyfrom networking or aligning of national pro-grammes at a European level. Some of the chal-lenges are so great that national research pro-grammes are unable to tackle them effectively ontheir own7. However, 85% of European publicresearch funding is spent nationally withouttransnational collaboration between programmes orcompetition between researchers from differentMember States, while only 15% is coordinated inintergovernmental organisations (such as CERN) orspent jointly in the Research Framework Programme.While we do not suggest that this proportion shouldbe changed, it is clear that coordination and dialogueacross MS should be supported as a means to addressglobal challenges and to avoid fragmentation andduplication of research effort in Europe.

22. In addition to this, the EU continues to underper-form in terms of growth against other global playerssuch as the US, Japan or the BRIC countries. A keyproblem for EU policy-makers in this analysis is thatthe EU is not homogenous: results of internationallypeer-reviewed competition for funding withinFramework Programme 7 show that MS with a highlevel of R&D intensity lead the field (both in terms ofwinning funding and research outputs) while MSwith low level R&D intensity form a long tail8. Thishighlights that research capability in low R&D-intensive MS is not being used as effectively as it

could be. If Europe is to tackle major societal chal-lenges and hold its own in a globally competitiveenvironment, it is essential that research capabilityacross all European member states is fully exploitedwhile maintaining the focus on research excellence.

Joint Programming Initiatives

23. It is difficult to stipulate the optimum degree of researchactors' transnational operation that is needed to jointlytackle major societal challenges, since each societalchallenge is unique. The development and so far variedimplementation of Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs)throughout the EU illustrates this difficulty. The devel-opment of JPIs is a good example of where, in theory, amore coordinated approach at EU level should comple-ment funding at a national level. However JPIs - whichare MS-driven - have in reality taken too long to developin areas of global and societal challenges - areas thatclearly require urgent responses.

Openness and transparency

24. LERU has recently argued that Joint Programmingshould be based on a common vision of how toaddress the major societal challenges, which shouldbe defined by relevant stakeholders through a trans-parent process and with the contribution of leadingresearchers9. Transparency in the establishment andmanagement of JPIs is crucial. A proliferation of dif-ferent rules of participation should be minimised.Leading scientific experts (academics or industrialplayers) should decide on the challenges that growinto JPIs, instead of national ministerial delegateswho may fail to properly consult appropriate stake-holders. Consensus needs to be built on the exactmeaning and scope of specific challenges enablingthe scientific community to engage appropriately.

7 League of European Research Universities. (2011). Clear choices for Europe: Smart investment in research and innovation.

8 http://www.era.gv.at/attach/GPCcontributiontoERACinputonERAFramework-1stdraft-05092011.doc

9 League of European Research Universities. (2010). Universities, research and the 'Innovation Union'.

III. Cross-border operation of research actors

Key points

• Develop an effective overarching EU strategy for research programmes to address global challenges in bothtop-down and bottom-up fashion.

• Work closely with all stakeholders to avoid double efforts or conflicting priorities.

10 League of European Research Universities. (2010). Universities, research and the 'Innovation Union'.

Collaborations across a wide range of disciplines arerequired with vital contributions from the humani-ties and social sciences. The European Commissionshould take on the role of 'gatekeeper' by establish-ing efficient and harmonised governance. It shouldalso ensure that excellent researchers from countriesthat are not part of the JPI discussion are able to par-ticipate. Finally, enough flexibility should be builtinto JPIs to include both innovation-driven appliedresearch as well as basic research.

European initiatives: addressing global challenges

25. Whilst LERU agrees on the need to tackle globalsocietal challenges, the approach taken thus far bythe various EU institutions appears uncoordinatedand haphazard. "Grand challenges" are mentionednot only in relation to JPIs, but also in the Knowledgeand Innovation Communities (KICs), FP7 WorkProgrammes and European Innovation Partnerships(EIPs) proposed in the EU 2020 strategy. LERU isconcerned that the term has developed into the latestbuzz word to be introduced into every instrumentregardless of how appropriate or meaningful it maybe. We would suggest that European approaches toaddressing "grand challenges" should have a clearfocus and rationale. EIPs, for example, should onlybe created if they can truly ensure better coordina-tion or harmonisation, transparency and effectivegovernance of already existing European initiatives.They should not be developed as yet another layer tobe added to existing platforms, which would createan even bigger web of European projects. Similarly,Joint Programming Initiatives would be more effec-tive if concentrated in a strategic manner on a fewclearly defined societal challenges with a largeimpact on Europe, such as quality of life and envi-ronment, health, food, water and energy supplies.

Programmes that facilitate cross-border operation

26. Cross-border collaboration is important not only foraddressing societal challenges via top-down steeredresearch, but also to support investigator-driven,bottom-up research through funding programmesthat promote trans-national mobility and portabilityof grants. The Marie Curie (MC) Programme which

requires fellows to undergo transnational mobilityas a pre-requisite for funding has helped structurethe European Research Area. In addition to the MCscheme the relatively new but highly successfulEuropean Research Council (ERC) programme hasas a key characteristic the portability of the grant,once awarded. The trans-national and portabilityfeatures of the MC and ERC schemes are good exam-ples of complementarity with national programmesclearly facilitating cross-border activity whilst,importantly, retaining and promoting the excellenceimperative. LERU strongly endorses the ERC and MCprogrammes as an effective way of supporting excel-lent researchers across Europe.

Infrastructures

27. European-level development of expensive infrastruc-tures provides major benefits in developing a trulyEuropean research base (see section IV). It givesEuropean researchers access to major facilities that noor few MS might individually be able to afford, and ben-efits researchers by providing opportunities that mightotherwise be beyond reach. The creation of Europeanresearch infrastructure, thus ensuring that the very besttalents have access to world class facilities, clearlyimpacts on cross-border operations at European,national, regional and researcher level and fostersEuropean and international research collaboration10.

11


28. As was stated in the introduction, there are linksbetween the nine focus areas under consideration inthis paper. In this section we briefly examine some ofthese areas in relation to research infrastructures beforeturning to specific research infrastructure issues.

Researchers

29. Employment conditions, mobility and careerprospects underlie all infrastructure developments.Several issues arise:• What employment conditions will exist at EU

research infrastructure facilities?• Where will they be geographically located from

the perspective of their utility to and access byresearchers?

• The role of universities in the provision of skilledmanpower and researchers is insufficiently recog-nised.

• The portability of national Member State (MS)/EUgrants to and from research infrastructures tosupport projects for which that infrastructure willbe used needs to be discussed.

Cross-border operation of research actors

30. EU schemes for cross-border operation of researchare vital if the EU is to be a unifying entity promotingtransnational cooperation. There are a number ofissues with respect to EU research infrastructure: • Largely, national research programmes do not

provide for cross-border research (cf. section II).• The legal system under which an EU research

infrastructure operates has to be clearly defined,as it may impact on MS research funding. It can-not just be the law of the host country of a facility.

• MS legal restrictions such as exchange of patientinformation or material have to be addressed.

• Intellectual property (see below).

Knowledge transfer

31. If research infrastructure is a route by which toestablish a better collaborative and cooperativedirection, then this must be addressed. The keyquestions are:• Which intellectual property law will govern an EU

research infrastructure? If a single intellectualproperty court is agreed for the European Union,then there is some hope of uniformity but whereindividual MS national awards continue to be themajor source of funding for work undertaken in ashared research infrastructure then the terms andconditions as well as the legal jurisdiction in whichdisputes may be considered has to be resolvedbefore such an infrastructure is established.

• How will research from an EU infrastructure, con-ducted by a university employee and funded bymultiple MS and commercial funders, be protect-ed and exploited?

• Interaction with industry cannot just be defined bythe Board of an EU research infrastructure.

32. LERU universities have considerable experience inthis regard and their staff will be a key factor of inter-action with EU infrastructure. Arrangements forknowledge transfer and industry should be estab-lished early in the discussion and in the creation ofgovernance systems.

Open access and open innovation

33. Open access should not cause any difficulty to LERUuniversities as most would contend that publiclyfunded research is made available. However, once anEU research institute/infrastructure is established,then their position in relationship to open accessmust be clarified (see section V). LERU universitieshave to consider this with regard to their own and sec-torial policies. Open innovation is a developmentwhich will influence policy relating to intellectual

12


IV. Research infrastructures

Key points

• Allow for appropriate governance controls of EU research infrastructures, as well as critical review and abuilt-in assumption of closure rather than maintenance in perpetuity of the infrastructure.

• Set high level controls on movement between budgets for all aspects of research funding to prevent redirec-tion of additional resources.

• Ensure that decision making is based on scientific need rather than political imperatives.

property and its future exploitation. LERU and otheruniversities and some industry sectors may find diffi-culties in this regard and appropriate early steps mustbe taken in considering EU research infrastructure.

The international dimension of the European Research Area

34. The opening up of the European Research Area tocountries outside the European Union merely addsto the complexity particularly when one considerstheir access to shared EU research infrastructure.How will they operate under the agreed rules onintellectual property, legal jurisdiction and engage-ment with MS especially where national funding andmobility programmes are involved? Fellows andpostdocs from these states are less problematic butif these countries invest in programmes or the infra-structure itself, then the terms under which thoseinteractions occur have to be clearly defined. Thiswill put particular pressure on directors of EUresearch infrastructures to ensure that there is an EUdominated priority of the utilisation of that infra-structure. Again LERU universities are willing to beparticipants.

Cross-cutting governance issues andnext steps

35. Governance is a significant issue for EU researchinfrastructure. It has to ensure efficient and costeffective utilisation especially as projects will oftenbe undertaken with funding from member states.Since staff from LERU and other universities will bekey participants in these programmes, they shouldbe represented in the governance of such infrastruc-tures. The added value of EU infrastructures couldbe jeopardised if such infrastructures are run by anindividual director without reference to universities.It is essential that the European Commissionengages with LERU to ensure that new EU researchinfrastructures are governed such that the interestsof all parties - commerce, funders, universities andother research performing organisations - are metfor the benefit of the European Research Area.

36. All these aspects will influence the effectiveness ofinvestment in physical EU research infrastructure asmuch as the specific issues that need to beaddressed. Each could become a 'showstopper' foran infrastructure facility and has to be consideredbefore implementation, particularly of fixed physicalinfrastructure.

Research infrastructures: specific issues

37. Many issues specific to research infrastructure buildon the generic aspects discussed above. Large infra-structure has been successful in developing EU lead-ership and providing opportunities for disciplinesthat would otherwise have been unable to pursuecutting edge science, such as CERN and EMBL.However, there is little in the draft consultation thatenables specific comment. Infrastructure needs toremain vital in many areas, such as astrophysics, andother sciences where expensive joint working isrequired for Europe to remain a competitive environ-ment. LERU strongly supports joint working toenable our investigators access to such facilities.

38. The mechanism by which these facilities are estab-lished is more problematic. ESFRI, as an importantexample, has established bottom-up priorities butuntil the development of ERIC it had failed to deliveron more than one project. The difficulties have beenthat, firstly, ESFRI was required to get agreed fund-ing from participating MS and to ensure sustainabil-ity. In addition it was a cumbersome process todefine priority between projects; when it ultimatelyagreed most 'bottom-up' proposals it became a raceto see which could raise the money first. Thereforeit is of little surprise that the Commission wouldwish to invest in infrastructure to support majorprojects which if held up could damage Europe'scompetitiveness. Unfortunately there is little detailprovided and little support can be given until moredetailed proposals as to how:• investment priorities, based on research needs,

will be established and by whom;• the costs are clearly defined relative to investment

in basic and applied science support;• mechanisms for programmatic support are clari-

fied;• a governance model for EU research infrastruc-

tures will operate;• sustainability and future-proofing will be estab-

lished;• transition or termination provisions will be

addressed in the planning process.

39. Furthermore it raises additional issues relating toshared facilities:• Cross-border cooperation and barriers (discussed

above).• EU and national funding organisations' ability to

move programmatic funding to utilise the infra-structure must be addressed. Just as with differ-ences in support for capital investment seen in the

13


ESFRI proposals, there will be variability betweenMS (in part related to national priorities). There islittle evidence of cohesion between national fund-ing agencies to resolve these issues. Joint pro-gramming may be a solution but it remainsunclear whether MS will participate.

• The mobility of PhD candidates, postdocs andstaff is vital.

• It must not substitute for use of structural funds tosupport MS research endeavour.

• Geographical location must be determined by sci-entific excellence and critical mass, alongside easeof access, and not by political manoeuvring.Locating facilities in close proximity to RIUs willhelp to overcome the issues of critical mass, sus-tainability and access.

• Sustainability of infrastructure is seldom consid-ered when an infrastructure is being planned.Several questions arise:a) Who will support the ongoing projects for

which the infrastructure will be used? Is thisdown to national agencies providing project-based funding or will a director be provided withfunding? Will funds be provided by the EU?

b) Where will costs for maintenance be provided?c) Who will provide for costs to future-proof the

development?d) Most current institutes/infrastructures deem

themselves independent. Therefore the directordemands a budget in order to develop eitherpilot work or sustain staff with a scientific pro-gramme. How will this be scrutinised andassessed competitively in the future?

e) Does an infrastructure merely provide a serviceor is it a scientific entity in its own right? Towhat extent will staff from universities be able tohelp shape the direction and priority of pro-grammes as opposed to a director-ledapproach? If a director has no control, whyshould any scientist undertake this role?

f ) The governance of the institute and its advisoryboard is often facility- or science-specific with-out consideration of the needs of outside usersfrom the university sector or industry. How willthis be resolved?

g) Infrastructure has a limited lifespan, yet thetrack record of closure of facilities by theEuropean Union is non-existent. Facilitiesexpand their remit and any suggestion ofplanned closure falls foul of MS interests. Willthis be resolved?

40. EU research infrastructures could help the ERA toremain competitive. In some sectors physical infra-

structure is essential to attract and maintain the bestinvestigators in the European Union. But one mustnot fall into the trap of thinking of research infra-structures as purely large physical facilities, sincemany disciplines require distributed facilities withcross-border collaboration.

41. The proposals also seek a view as to better exploitingresearch infrastructures that already exist. Theremust be a critical mass of scientists and investigatorsfrom around the EU to justify re-designating suchinfrastructure. A key element will have to be achange in the governance of such facilities to ensureaccess and appropriate prioritisation of usage.

Cost

42. Can EU research infrastructures be afforded undercurrent budgetary proposals? Under the preliminaryHorizon 2020 proposals, the budget for EU researchinfrastructures would be part of the pillar "excellencein the science base", which will also fund the ERC,Marie Curie and FET programmes. The EU needs tocarefully consider the balance and priorities betweenprogrammes. Optimistically the EU proposes anincreased budget for R&D, which could fund researchinfrastructures. If this optimism is not borne out,what will research infrastructures replace?

43. Research infrastructures require support to main-tain the infrastructure as well as demands fromdirectors for in-house science and development.This can remove expenditure that may otherwisesupport researchers. How will such high level alloca-tions constrain expenditure on the infrastructures?

44. Expansion of infrastructures reduces budgetary flex-ibility as they become a fixed asset that lays claim tocontinued expenditure. It remains to be seenwhether this is in the long term interest of universi-ties and of the EU.

14


45. There is no doubt that high quality knowledge trans-fer (KT) is critical in ensuring that publically fundedresearch is used and exploited to its best advantage.Alone, this does not address the goal of contributingsignificantly to economic and social benefit; the lat-ter goal requires the former to be performed at scale.

46. Successful knowledge transfer requires:a) high quality intellectual property (supply side);b) skilled, knowledge transfer professionals with

commercial experience; c) a significant base of sophisticated and engaged

industrial consumers (demand side);d) business leaders, technologists, and business

development people willing and able to engagewith technology and transaction types appropriateto the academic world;

e) explicit long-term encouragement from govern-ment;

f ) a culture of engagement and valuing KT withinindustry, universities and public research organi-sations and;

g) a permissive environment to allow flexible interac-tion.

47. High quality intellectual property is founded on highquality (basic or applied) research. It is greatlyenhanced by researchers who have performed theirwork, where appropriate, with consideration ofknowledge transfer opportunities.

48. Consequently, making researchers aware of basicprinciples and issues critical to successful knowledgetransfer so that they seek out practical advice and helpas needed is imperative. This is best achieved bybuilding a culture of awareness of, respect for andvaluing of knowledge transfer and cultivating experi-enced knowledge transfer professionals.

49. Knowledge transfer can often require researchers toadapt their work from traditional research goals.Thus, knowledge transfer should be recognised as alegitimate and valuable outcome of research.Recognition should be considered in broad terms asresearchers are not necessarily best placed to drive theknowledge transfer process and interactions.Recognising constructive and appropriate KT engage-ment in performance assessment and promotion deci-sions is critical to building a culture and recognition ofKT as a meaningful and valuable outcome of research.

50. Strategies and policies for developing and imple-menting KT are important in environments withouta tradition or history of successful KT. Where suchare required, they should build on the expertise andexperience of successful institutions, environmentsor regions and provide appropriate incentives for uni-versities and public research organisations. However,governments, universities and public research organ-isations should have realistic expectations of what canbe achieved and how long it can take.

51. Experienced and effective knowledge transfer organi-sations and personnel are vital. The skill sets requiredwithin a KT organisation, pertaining to relevant tech-nology, science, market, product development, busi-ness development and other commercially relevantexperience, are not commonly seen in many KTorganisations. The development of such a skill baserequires significant investment in recruitment andtraining and can only be justified in KTOs where thereis a significant knowledge base to be served.

52. Successful knowledge transfer requires flexible, cre-ative approaches to the interaction between busi-nesses and research organisations and a culture thatencourages such. KT cannot be legislated and is best

15


V. Knowledge transfer

Key points

• Promote permissive, incentive-led KT environments ensuring flexible interactions inside and outside of theuniversity.

• Support the development of a culture of KT awareness and value by building experienced KT offices and per-sonnel.

• Increase volume market demand in Europe by providing incentives to stimulate university-industry KT interac-tion, including patent boxes, targeted tax incentives, leveraged funding for commercial development of academ-ic origin technology and well-managed patent pools.

achieved through positive incentives. Guidelines toKT should aim to provide principles, guidance andhelp to inexperienced researchers, KT professionalsand transacting parties to facilitate and simplify theprocess of engagement, interaction and transaction.Guidelines should not be prescriptive or allowed tobecome effectively binding.

53. The focus of the ERA Framework public consultationquestionnaire suggests significant concerns overimproving the supply side of knowledge transfer.Knowledge transfer might be considered as marketpush. The demand, or market pull, side is the otherimportant part and must also be considered11.

54. The evidence presented in the ERA Framework pub-lic consultation suggests that EU companies collab-orate with their academic counterparts at a lowerrate than their US counterparts12 and suggests thatthere is less market demand in Europe for KT or itsoutputs. To substantially improve KT quality andvolume market demand must be increased.

55. European companies appear less willing to invest inand take risk with KT opportunities (new collabora-tions and technology) than their US (and otherregions) counterparts. Providing incentives thatreduce the risk to European companies of collabo-rating with universities or public research organisa-tions and/or taking on technology is critical.

56. Specific measures include (i) patent boxes, (ii) tar-geted tax incentives, (iii) leveraged funding for com-mercial development of academic origin technology(e.g. proof-of-concept funding) and (iv) well-man-aged patent pools. Without their use KT withinEurope is likely to be considerably harder to fosterthan it might otherwise be.

57. Knowledge transfer activities should be monitored so asto inform policy makers as to the effectiveness of knowl-edge transfer incentives so that they can be adapted rap-idly in response to success and market failure.

16


11 League of European Research Universities. (2010). Universities, research and the ‘Innovation Union’.

League of European Research Universities. (2006). Universities and innovation: the challenge for Europe.

12 As measured by the number of public-private co-authored research, for which the figures for the US are double of those for the EU, Innovation

Union Competitiveness Report 2011, I-203.

58. A university's mission is to create knowledge and todisseminate it; Open Access can help universities tofulfil this mission. Universities benefit from theaggregated impact of their researchers. The new audi-ences that Open Access brings to research can use thisaccess to build on research findings and to make fur-ther discoveries. Having university research open andshowcased to the world potentially boosts a universi-ty's profile and enables the uptake and use of the fruitsof research effort funded for the benefit of Society13.

59. Access to research information must be optimised ifthe European research community is to operateeffectively, producing high-quality research that hasa wider social and economic impact. A recentreport's key finding is that access is still a major con-cern for researchers. Although researchers reporthaving no problems finding content in this age ofelectronic information, gaining access is anothermatter due to the complexity of licensing arrange-ments, restrictions placed on researchers accessingcontent outside their own institution, and the lawsprotecting public and private sector information14.

60. There are also compelling reasons to improve accessto research data. However, there is a lack of compre-hensive support infrastructure across Europe. Thereis a host of issues to be addressed to support data-driven approaches - academic, cultural, financial,technical and legal. Whose responsibility is it tocurate and ensure that data can be shared and re-used? Do academics accept that data they produce

can be used in this way? How much will it cost, andwho will pay? Are such approaches legal15?

61. How much of the pan-European infrastructure tosupport Open Access to research publications anddata should be at the European level, how much atthe Member States level and how much at institu-tional level? Some infrastructure, for example majorinfrastructure for the storage of research data ema-nating from international scientific experimenta-tion, is best managed at a European/global level.Other data outputs could be handled at the national,or even local, level through well-funded repositoriesfor data, which are interoperable. The frameworksfor creating and managing these repositories couldbe agreed at European level, but implementednationally and/or locally. For research publications,academic researchers are likely to deposit in a sub-ject repository (if this exists for their subject area) orin an institutional repository. Deposit in an EU-levelrepository is less likely, because a researcher's pri-mary loyalties lie elsewhere.

62. There is one important area which the EC consulta-tion does not explicitly address, and this is the long-term digital preservation of research outputs andresearch data. Simple access to such materials is dif-ferent from a guarantee of the sustainable, long-term preservation of such materials. Long-termaccess to digital publications and data (which is thedefinition of digital preservation) is essential for theERA. It is irresponsible to create digital objects

17


13 Quoted in paragraph 11 of: The League of European Research Universities. (2011). The LERU Roadmap Towards Open Access.

14 Research Information Network. (2009). Overcoming barriers: access to research information content. Available at http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attach-

ments/Sarah/Overcoming-barriers-report-Dec09_0.pdf.

15 Some of these issues are being explored in the EU-funded ODE (Opportunities for Data Exchange) project at

http://www.alliancepermanentaccess.org/index.php/current-projects/ode.

VI. Open access

Key points

• Promote an Open Science agenda.• Update EU copyright legislation and re-examine the EU Database Directive.• Support the development of mandates for deposit.• A major issue to solve is who will be responsible for creating, managing and funding repositories.• The EU should play a facilitative role, providing funding for infrastructure, as well as consultation, advoca-

cy and guidance in best practice, especially in the area of long-term digital preservation of research outputsand data.

(research publications or data) and not to be able toguarantee long-term access to them. The EU has animportant role to play in this area. Does everyresearch university need to create digital preserva-tion infrastructures to tackle this challenge? Is thechallenge best dealt with at an EU level with pan-European infrastructure? What would this look like?Where should it be based? What is best practice inthis area? The LIBER-supported LIFE project(Lifecycle Information for E-literature) has doneground-breaking work in the area of costing for dig-ital preservation of a range of material types16. Whatis needed now is pan-European infrastructure todeliver the vision.

63. What actions, other than funding, are needed at anEU level to remedy some of these issues? The EU canand should play a major role in co-ordinating thedevelopment of joined-up Open Access infrastruc-ture across the ERA. Funding is part of this, but it isfar more than an issue of funding. There needs to beadvocacy, identification of best practice, alignmentof policies and mandates, and proactive interventionto ensure that the infrastructure is in the right placewhen needed and is sustainable. The EU shouldwork with champions to ensure that all these actionsare carried out. The LERU Roadmap Towards OpenAccess (2011) identifies infrastructure for theembedding of green and gold routes towards OpenAccess into the European landscape. This submis-sion identifies key challenges in terms of the man-agement and re-use of research publications anddata. The EU through funding, advocacy, guidance,proactive intervention and consultation with rele-vant stakeholders can help develop an era of OpenScholarship in Europe. LERU is ready and willing tocontribute to this task. What is needed is partner-ship between the organs of the EU, research univer-sities (represented by LERU) and research funders toidentify what infrastructure is needed and how itshould be deployed.

64. In terms of negotiations with scholarly publishers,there are examples in Member States where discus-sions about subscription prices are linked to OpenAccess models, in at least one case with the nationalgovernment as an intermediary. Benefits to small-and medium-sized companies (SMEs) are a driver inlooking at the possibility of turning subscriptions

into licences which allow Open Access across awhole country. However, such discussions are cur-rently the exception rather than the rule.

65. EU copyright legislation does cover scientific researchoutputs, but needs to be updated as modern publish-ing and research trends develop. The principle whichshould underpin such legislation is the necessary bal-ance between the interests of the author/researcherand the public interest. This is essential and should bea priority for the EU to work towards. There are anumber of immediate concerns. Commercial licencescan over-ride fair dealing exceptions and this iswrong. Nor is there a level playing field across theERA. EU copyright legislation works alongside legis-lation at the MS level, and many EU copyright frame-works simply offer recommendations to, rather thanpropose obligations on, Member States. Additionally,in an era of Open Data, the EU Database Directiveshould be re-examined to ensure that it allows Openapproaches to data management.

66. Publication repositories across Europe are interop-erable and they are indexed by major search enginessuch as Google. Developments in the Europeanaportal17 will also in future allow repository content tobe discoverable through that site. In a digital ERA,there is not one road to discovery, but many.Repository content should be discoverable throughas many routes as possible. The issue is not so muchone of interoperability, but of the deposit of content.Repositories are far emptier than they should be.Mandates for deposit, linked to institutional strate-gies for research and publication, and funder man-dates help in this respect. However, for academics tobe convinced, the benefits of Open Access also needto be clear and transparent - so further advocacyacross the ERA is needed.

67. It is certainly true that repositories for open data arenot sufficiently interoperable. However, this is notthe most immediate concern. The larger, prior ques-tions are, who is responsible for creating suchrepositories, how will they be funded, how will theybe filled with content, and how quickly can they beestablished to support data-driven science?

68. Should Member States have national policies forOpen Access, linked to EU policies? This is really an

18


16 For LIBER (Association of European Research Libraries), see http://www.libereurope.eu; for the first two of three phases of the LIFE project, see

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/14954/1/14954.pdf.

17 See http://www.europeana.eu

issue of research governance. In many MemberStates, it is unlikely that national governments willissue such policies, as this would be seen to infringethe autonomy of universities. The framework of poli-cies and mandates will therefore, by necessity, bemore disparate across the ERA. Certainly, there arefunder mandates in place from many funders, andthe EU has taken a lead in making it obligatory forresearch outputs from the Framework Programmeto be made available in Open Access. However, is theEU joined up on this? Does the same apply to fund-ing made available by the European ResearchCouncil? Certainly the EU should present a commonposition on these issues.

69. Concerning Member States' policies on researchdata, the issue that needs to be addressed here is dif-ferent. Again, it is unlikely that Member States them-selves will issue policies/mandates on this topic. Thereal issue at the current time is actually the lack ofawareness amongst relevant bodies and researchersin the Member States that research data presentchallenges that need to be addressed.

70. Are the policies of Member States on research publi-cations and data sufficiently co-ordinated?Currently, there is a lack of co-ordination in this areaat an EU level. Even at a national level in the MemberStates, there is often a lack of co-ordination or buy-in by universities, research bodies and independentresearchers. It is unlikely that more stringent co-ordination at an EU level would itself automaticallylead to greater compliance across the ERA. Rather,the EU should play a more facilitative role, providingfunding for infrastructure and advocacy and guid-ance in best practice, which will demonstrate yetmore clearly the benefits of Open Access to researchpublications and data, thereby encouraging take-up.

19


71. Within the EU, the potential benefits for RIUs and forsociety more generally of the ERA stem from a num-ber of factors outlined in the introduction: intensifiedcompetitive pressures, greater opportunities for col-laboration to exploit economies of scale and scope,higher productivity/human capital growth from thediffusion of knowledge and techniques, andenhanced resilience of the research sector at an EUlevel. RIU engagement internationally is also likely toexhibit similar benefits, albeit at a different levels. Butthe role, contribution and needs of RIUs operating atan international level also reflect other motivations,chief of which is access to and interaction with world-leading expertise and facilities outside the EU, giventhe relative and declining ranking of EU R&D spendand performance against major developed (US, Japan)and emerging economies (China, India). While exist-ing instruments such as FP7 provide mechanisms todevelop such collaborations, more needs to be doneto build jointly funded research partnerships betweenleading institutions within and outside the EU, effec-tively leveraging EU and Member State resources forspecific, large-scale collaborative programmes. Forexample, while for health applications the EU alreadyhas in place a reciprocity agreement with the US NIH,more could be done to extend such agreements, withthe appropriate funding bodies, into other subjectareas.

72. A second dimension of RIU activity internationally islinked to the ambitions of several smaller but verywealthy developed economies, for example in Asia,who now have the desire and resources to buildworld-class research and educational institutionsfrom a very low baseline in a very short timeframe.This brings research and commercial opportunitiesfor European RIUs in the short term but leads tointensified competition for top talent in the mediumto long term if the EU and individual Member States

are unable to match their rate of progress. Whateverthe future funding landscape, EU RIUs will want toforge close and durable collaborative links and part-nerships with the new elite RIUs in these regions.The ERA and Member States could help EU RIUsaddress this competitive threat through a number ofmeasures:a) An increased level of investment in world-class

research facilities in key areas of existing EUresearch strength and future opportunity, clus-tered around world-class EU RIUs.

b) Generously endowed and competitively awardedresearch professorships for leading EU RIUs to helpattract global talent to EU institutions, rather than tocompetitors, for example following and strengthen-ing the successful ERC model.

73. A third critical dimension of the ERA will be how ithelps shape and support EU RIU collaborations andrelations more generally with RIUs in the rapidlygrowing major economies of China, India andBrazil. RIUs within and across these countries arehugely diverse and at different stages of maturity,presenting opportunities for EU RIUs to build strongpartnerships for the future through investments inPhD scholarships and mobility and research pro-grammes to foster inter-institutional collaborationsand exchanges. The EC has already recognised theimportance of this issue and has broad S&T agree-ments in place with them. The scale of funding ishowever inadequate to the challenge and there areadditional supporting actions such as the develop-ment of the relevant language skills among youngEU researchers, which could usefully be developed.

74. Shaping the international dimensions of ERA toenhance the economic benefits to the EU from inter-national R&D activity is a fourth crucial issue. TheEU is pioneering new ways of encouraging innova-

20


VII. The international dimension

Key points

• Leverage EU and MS resources for specific, large-scale collaborative programmes with research fundingprogrammes across the world.

• Make the most effective use of limited resources in the present time of severe financial pressure, for exam-ple through better alignment of EC and MS programmes, without however compromising funding levels orresearch excellence.

• Strengthen ERA international activity focused on global challenges to support EU policies in other areas, butdo not move away from funding open-ended frontier research.

tive collaborations between education, research andindustry within the EU; this could usefully be extend-ed internationally using jointly funded programmeswith technologically advanced economies to developeven deeper partnerships between EU RIUs and themany globally excellent research-intensive compa-nies that may not have been aware of Europeanresearch and innovation strengths. In some impor-tant countries, leading research-intensive companieshave closely allied institutes and universities that maynot be the top universities in that country, let aloneinternationally, but may have some particular strengththat is valued by the associated company. ERAengagement will need to be sufficiently smart andflexible to allow EU RIUs to engage with niche playersif the EU is to exploit the benefits of internationalR&D collaborations.

Challenges for ERA

75. Research and innovation are only as good as the peo-ple within the universities. Enhancing the attractive-ness of the EU as a destination for top research tal-ent globally is therefore a vital role for the ERA. Weare losing out to two of the three categories of econ-omy outlined above (i.e. (i) major developed; and (ii)smart, small and wealthy) and over the next ten yearswe will increasingly see RIUs in major developingeconomies becoming major magnets for topresearch talent globally. There is a non-negligiblerisk that within a few decades, without coordinatedand effective action, EU clusters of excellence may bedegraded to the point where they are no longer soprominent within the leading RIUs globally and maystruggle to sustain effective research collaborationswith the new elite institutions outside the EU. TheEU and Member States need to support an increasedflow of, and interaction with, top quality students(both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels) andfunding top-quality researchers wanting to come tothe EU, e.g. with junior and advanced fellowships.Attracting top talent is also dependent on investingin Europe's research base. The level of public andprivate investment in R&D is too low and furtherthreatened by the European financial crisis.

76. While the EU aims to establish a single market forknowledge, there is currently no level playing field interms of the market for non-EU international researchand other students. In some countries, internationalstudents may be highly subsidised either throughdirect funding of the RIU or through institution ornationally funded scholarship schemes. In othercountries, RIUs may be less generously supported at a

national level and rely on a business model of attract-ing international students at premium fees. This cre-ates risks. EU RIUs must compete for PhD studentresearchers and research opportunities but they arenegotiating with countries that have significant bar-gaining power. Individual EU RIUs therefore find itdifficult to extract adequate value from their interna-tional relationships, with much of the value capturedby our current or future competitors.

77. Fiscal pressures across the EU may undermine cur-rent funding models for RIUs. The extent to whichinternational student and research income can com-pensate is limited given emerging strong RIUs inother parts of the world, potentially damaging thefinancial position of some of the EU's world-leadingRIUs and their ability to compete internationally.More effective use of limited resources is important(e.g. better alignment of EC and MS programmes)but must not be used as an excuse to reduce fundinglevels or to compromise on excellence.

78. Mobility barriers to international talent may act as adeterrent driving students and researchers awayfrom the EU. The Commission's efforts to facilitatethe ERA via its research and innovation fundingschemes will face a number of structural obstaclessince many of the critical immigration, social andpension issues are largely or completely determinedby Member States rather than the Commission.

79. ERA international activity focused on global chal-lenges is important and if carefully deployed can sup-port EU policies in other areas. But real care is need-ed, both in terms of not demanding more of sciencethan it can deliver (e.g. climate projections) and in notneglecting the very real need for developing extensiveand close collaborations with world-leading expertisein so-called "fundamental" or "pure" research areas.

21


Identifying the problem

80. The management and monitoring of the ERAPartnership remain problematic issues, whichurgently need to be tackled. Although progress hasbeen made since the initiative was launched a decadeago, it is clear that much remains to be done. As waspointed out in the 2010 Belgian Presidency ProgressReport on the realisation of the ERA, better policymixes and better coordination with national and sub-national policies focusing on complementarity, priori-tisation and efficiency are required at the EU level18.Moreover, stronger national policies are needed, "set-ting research and innovation as a priority and provid-ing sufficient funds for it. Moreover, Member Statesshould learn from each other, through the exchange ofbest practice and peer review". The report furthermorestates that "all stakeholders, ranging from theEuropean Council, the European Commission andnational and regional governments to enterprises,research organisations and researchers, should beinvolved in building a single knowledge economybased on a single market".

81. The 2010 Belgian Presidency conclusions are alsoreflected in the ERA Framework consultation docu-ments where the European Commission clearlystates that the issues to be tackled relate to gover-nance deficiencies and to the underdevelopment of aclear and coherent research policy between the EUand the Member States with clear objectives and amonitoring system, as well as links to innovation,education and cohesion policies; furthermore, a lackof coherence and synergies between different ERA-

related initiatives and instruments also results in alower impact than would otherwise be the case19.

Possible solution

82. That the issues described above persist, may come assomewhat of a surprise because as of December 1,2009 (date of entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty)the EU institutions have had sufficient tools toaddress these issues in the Treaty on the Functioningof the European Union.

83. Article 179, 1 of the Treaty on the functioning of theEU (TFEU) states that "The Union shall have theobjective of strengthening its scientific and techno-logical bases by achieving a European research areain which researchers, scientific knowledge and tech-nology circulate freely, and encouraging it to becomemore competitive, including in its industry, whilepromoting all the research activities deemed neces-sary by virtue of other Chapters of the Treaties".

84. Added to this broad attribution of power, Article 182,5 of the TFEU stipulates that "as a complement to theactivities planned in the multiannual frameworkprogramme, the European Parliament and theCouncil, acting in accordance with the ordinary leg-islative procedure and after consulting the Economicand Social Committee, shall establish the measuresnecessary for the implementation of the Europeanresearch area".

85. The question then is why the EU institutions havenot started to make use of these powers. If there

22


18 Securing the Knowledge Area. Belgian Presidency Progress Report on the realisation of the European Research Area. (2010). p. 2-3.

19 ERA Framework Public Consultation: Areas of untapped potential for the development of the European Research Area. Document accompanying

the on-line public consultation questionnaire on the ERA framework. (2011). p. 10.

VIII. ERA partnership: monitoring and managing

Key points

• Take into account the basic principles of EU action (in particular attribution, subsidiarity, proportionality andintegration) as leading principles for the development of a future EU research and innovation policy.

• Develop an EU framework directive to achieve a well-managed and -monitored European Research Area, layingdown the basic goals, principles, limitations, instruments, actions and actors of the EU research and innovationpolicy.

• Take care to respect Member State autonomy and continue to selectively use non-legislative instruments.

were ERA Partnership management and monitoringproblems, then these certainly could have been tack-led on the basis of the Treaty competences.

86. It is clear that the EU research and innovation policyfield is undergoing a crucial transformation. Foryears the remit of this policy field and its administra-tion, DG Research and Innovation, was limited torunning programmes and distributing money -nothing more, nothing less. An overarching frame-work guiding all initiatives launched and instru-ments used was however lacking.

87. This period has now clearly come to an end. TheTFEU forces the research and innovation policy fieldto adopt an approach which structures the wholefield of research and innovation at the Europeanlevel. This means that a legal framework for the pol-icy field must be adopted, principles and goals mustbe put forward for the policy, instruments must beselected, institutions must be identified as compe-tent actors, etc. Since this is more or less unknownterritory for the EU actors involved, it should not sur-prise us that there is some uncertainty and hesitanceto use and develop the powers invested.

88. However, we have seen similar evolutions in otherpolicy fields of the EU. Environment, energy andtransport, for instance, are all policy fields in whicha similar evolution has taken place: after theiranchorage in the EU Treaties, a legal framework,policy principles, policy goals, policy instruments,policy institutions, etc. have been developed by theentities responsible within the EuropeanCommission, the European Parliament and theEuropean Council. This has led to structured andmature policy and legislative frameworks in thesepolicy fields. The same has to happen now for EUresearch and innovation policy. To be clear, we donot have to start from scratch: over the past years, wehave seen prudent steps in developing institutionsand instruments such as the ERC, EIT and ERIC.

89. How should we proceed? The best option is to devel-op a framework directive which lays down the basicgoals, principles, limitations, instruments, actionsand actors of the EU research and innovation policy.As such, this should lead to a better co-ordination ofthe EU R&I policy and a better compatibility of EUactions and instruments.

90. Such a framework directive must take into accountthe basic principles of EU action, namely: • attribution: the EU should only act if it is compe-

tent on the basis of the EU Treaties,• subsidiarity: the EU should only act when it is the

appropriate level for action,• proportionality: the EU should only act as far as

and to the extent it is needed, and • integration: the EU should integrate research and

innovation considerations in decisions in otherpolicy fields.

Next to these principles, we can also refer to theprinciples of non-discrimination, equal opportunityand transparency as leading principles for a futureEU research and innovation policy.

91. In developing such an approach, a number of theissues mentioned above certainly can be tackled:a) putting forward a framework directive will not only

structure the EU R&I policy, but will also support, ifand where needed, the development of MemberState R&I policy; this will help to eliminate andreduce possible large gaps and disparities betweenresearch systems at national and regional level;

b)putting forward a framework directive will alsoimprove reporting and monitoring at European andnational level, making it possible to have a betterview on the progress of the realisation of the ERA;

c) in such a more structured policy field, theEuropean, national and regional stakeholdersshould clearly be involved in a structured way;therefore, the establishment of an ERAStakeholders' Platform is a good idea; through thisPlatform, the exchange of information and theactive participation of the European, national andregional stakeholders should be guaranteed;

d)all governments, be it at European, federal,regional or local level, will be supported or encour-aged to devote more attention to research and inno-vation in their own global policy development;

e) the bigger awareness of the urgency of the prob-lems at different levels of policy will in turn lead tomore cross-level consulted policy developmentand implementation.

92. A major contribution can thus be made to building asingle knowledge economy, based on a single mar-ket. A single market with a free circulation of knowl-edge as its fifth freedom needs a more structuredand managed approach of issues. The experiencewith the other four freedoms (persons, capital, serv-ices, goods) has shown that there is no alternativefor that.

93. However, not all issues will or must be resolved bymeans of an EU framework directive on research andinnovation. Instruments which have been developed

23


over the past years will and can keep their value.Reference can be made to the European funding pro-grammes and voluntary coordination mechanisms(such as the open method of coordination, the ERApartnerships, the ERA-nets and the Joint ProgrammingInitiatives).

94. All in all, the combination of binding and non-bind-ing instruments must lead the EU research and inno-vation policy towards the following goals, as put for-ward by Prof. Susana Borras (Copenhagen BusinessSchool, Denmark) during the ERAC Stakeholders'Seminar at the occasion of the launch of the publicconsultation on the ERA Framework (Brussels, 13September 2011): • improve the coherence between EU and national

policies, requiring focus on overall ERA gover-nance going beyond the current main focus onmanaging funds;

• enhance the efficiency in ERA, requiring a morato-rium and even reduction of the number of instru-ments;

• develop the principle of EU-national level partner-ship, requiring the development of ERA "coordi-nation" and "legislation" mechanisms to their fullpotential;

• enhance support capabilities for strategic deci-sions in ERA, requiring structures for the moni-toring and evaluation of ERA mechanisms;

• generate governance overview for strategic pur-poses, requiring appropriate governance struc-tures by developing theme-specific ERA initiatives(as today) or a single comprehensive ERA frame-work (as suggested above), or both;

• strengthen stakeholder participation, which willrequire rethinking and expanding national stake-holders' participation in ERA governance.

24


95. Gender bias has been a persistent problem and con-tinues to be a significant issue in academia. Amongthe broad diversity categories, which in addition togender include race, national origin, religion, ageand disability, the relative failure to eliminate theexisting bias with respect to gender is very striking,even if gender is the most pervasive category ofdiversity. This is why gender mainstreaming stillremains a major area of consideration in academicpolitics. In view of evidence both from universitiesand enterprises, diversity of staff can be linked tobetter performance. In other words, a significantgender bias equals loss of quality. LERU endorsesdiversity and gender policies in order to enhance thequality of research and teaching.

96. It is well known that Europe is still underutilising aconsiderable amount of its female intellectual capac-ity. Whereas the men-women ratio is relatively bal-anced up to the level of the doctorate, there is a steepdecrease afterwards and up the university's careerladder. On average in 2010, European universitieshad 30% of female staff but only 18% of full profes-sors. For all grade A academics at EU-27 level20,women account for 23% among 35- to 44-year-olds,21% among 45- to 54-year-olds, and 18% amongthose aged over 5521. It is clear that at this rate ofincrease time in and of itself will not redress theunderrepresentation of women in an adequate fash-ion and that specific measures are needed to supportwomen's research and academic careers on individ-ual and structural levels.

97. Female careers in academia exhibit significant turn-ing points after the PhD and at the transition point

from postdoc to first established post and, mostnotably, to full professorship or another leadingposition. The first turning point is at least to someextent a matter of free choice by which many talent-ed young women choose not to have academiccareers. Next to working conditions, this is particu-larly related to the prospect of the fragmented natureof funding and difficulties in securing establishedposts, which apply to both men and women, butdeter more women than men from choosing an aca-demic career. What is needed are generic career sup-port measures (structured and varied career tracks,well-designed posts, career development support,etc.) that are likely to have the most impact in retain-ing women in research and academic positions. Thesecond turning point, on the other hand, concernswomen who made their decision to stay in academia,but who are facing socio-cultural mechanismswhich partly prevent them from achieving leadingpositions. To address the problems arising at thesepoints action is needed on two levels: the first is to besituated at the level of HR management and meas-ures, the second one is in terms of institutional com-mitment and organisation.

HR management and measures

98. At the level of HR management and measures, thereare three crucially important areas to help youngwomen to decide in favour of an academic career andto successfully master the necessary stages on thiscareer path: 1) the implementation of supportingmeasures for young (female) researchers, 2) goodwork-life balance conditions, and 3) the availability ofsufficient funding. Transparency of all assessment

25


20 Grade A academics are full professors (cf. She figures 2009 - Statistics and Indicators on Gender Equality in Science, pp. 133-141).

21 European Commission. (2009). She figures 2009 - Statistics and Indicators on Gender Equality in Science. p. 73.

IX. Cross-cutting issue: Gender

Key points

• Ensure that Europe's female talent is properly used and valued in research. • Promote or develop actions at the level of HR management and measures by providing good work-life bal-

ance conditions for both women and men and by taking specific measures to support women's careers. • Promote and support an unwavering commitment of organisational leadership to gender equality. • Bring together all research stakeholders inncluding universities, institutes, funders, governments and oth-

ers to define frameworks and to promote or mandate gender equality and other quality-based diversityactions.

and recruitment procedures is essential at junior andsenior levels; having consistent and rigorous recruit-ment processes for academic staff is critical forwomen's success. At more advanced career stagesinstitutional organisation and leadership becomeincreasingly relevant compared to HR measures.

99. In terms of supporting measures for female re-searchers, there are various types of effective meas-ures. One example are funding programmes toaward stipends for so-called "protected time" free-ing grantees from certain responsibilities and allow-ing them to focus on research as a means to reach aspecified goal (e.g. high impact publications, com-petitive funding or tenure). Secondly, mentoring andtraining programmes have been shown to be partic-ularly effective to help women advance. They can beoffered in various formats to suit the needs of partic-ular cohorts or individuals. In addition, for aware-ness of committees and self-awareness of youngfemale researchers it may be important to know thatgender mainstreaming is an effective secondary cri-terion which comes into place if by the primary crite-rion of quality the percentage of female grantees sig-nificantly underscores the percentage of femaleapplicants. In such a case a renewed discussion ofthe criteria for quality is required. This type ofawareness with committees and with young femaleresearchers themselves can be very effective in elim-inating unconscious bias and in changing attitudeswithout resorting to targets or quota's.

100.A second key area covers work-life balance condi-tions. Work-life balance involves provisions for flex-ible working hours while children are small, dual-career options, supporting measures during mater-nity or parental leaves and child-care options.Moreover, it is well-known that research oftenrequires periods of international mobility, which canput serious strain on families. International mobilityand visibility are increasingly becoming a decisivecriterion for higher university positions. Possiblemeasures are to develop and recognise alternativesto traditional research stays abroad, e.g. virtual orshort periods of mobility. Well-designed infrastruc-tural and financial measures to support researcherswho plan international collaboration and travel alsoprove to be helpful.

101. Work-life balance measures are gender-blind, but canbe shown to help women overcome career obstaclesduring biologically productive periods in their liveswhich coincide with the career-productive periods. Itis crucial that such measures are well-designed,

-implemented and -monitored, otherwise they riskperpetuating rather than eliminating gender bias.

102.A third key area relates to funding. The acquisitionof research funding is a central element of a researchcareer. Acquired funding is often regarded as anindicator of someone's scientific reputation andvalue in the scientific community, which may be par-ticularly important in appointment and promotionprocedures. Sufficient funding is essential as a sup-porting measure in the form of research stipendsduring initial career stages, but also as a means todevelop and consolidate research areas. It is imper-ative that women are given the same possibilities asmen; this also holds for academic positions on spec-ified salary scales, which do not prevent womenfrom obtaining functionally and financially lowerpositions. Any overt or covert pay gaps must be actedupon. At the level of professorships, salary negotia-tions are crucial for the financial appreciation of theposition and women must have access to training forsalary negotiations. This should be monitored anduniversities should have gender-specific statisticsabout salaries.

103.One of the objectives must be to generate moreresearch applications by young female researchers. Inorder to achieve this, flexible funding can be madeavailable for a short period of time in order to stimu-late young female researchers to apply for grants. Aslong as the gender bias exists, such funding should beopen specifically to female applicants, because experi-ence shows that otherwise male applicants mayobtain a disproportionate share of such funding.

Institutional commitment and organisation

104.As stated above, in addition to HR management andmeasures, action is needed at the level of institution-al commitment. For progress to be made genderequality must be embedded in all levels of institu-tional organisation with an unwavering commit-ment of the leadership. Without strong leadership atthe top gender policies are unlikely to be translatedinto successful actions at the level of divisions, facul-ties, centres and individuals.

105.Experience shows that successful implementation ofgender issues in universities depends crucially on theexistence of Gender Equality Plans which are dis-cussed and decided at all levels along the hierarchy.Institutional Gender Equality Plans may be mandated,recommended or endorsed by national or other

26


authorities. Such democratically decided GenderEquality Plans may be binding for the university andmay include quantifiable goals to be reached withinspecific time windows, a clear scheme for their imple-mentation, and a transparent monitoring system.Evaluation of the results should have consequencesfor future strategic planning, including the possibilityof accompanying research. Universities should strivefor transparency in all aspects of gender issues.

106. The responsibility for gender equality can be organ-ised in different ways depending on the structureand peculiarities of individual universities, but mustas a rule involve all levels of the university hierarchy,from departments and faculties to the president's/rec-tor's office. Whichever model is chosen, it is impor-tant to establish a direct connection between the unitin charge of gender issues and the university leader-ship as well as direct accessibility of this unit to theuniversity community at large.

27


107. Freedom is the golden rule of research and, as a con-sequence, an indisputable, fundamental and inter-nationally recognised right of researchers. Researchshould not be restricted by political agendas andresearchers should not normally be restricted as towhat questions they can ask or what fields theyshould research into. This does not mean howeverthat such liberty can brook no limits. With academicfreedom comes the responsibility to behave withintegrity and to consider the implications of one'sresearch, as well as the conflicts which may arisewith other fundamental rights22.

108.Limits to the freedom of research can only be accept-ed if they are democratically agreed and formallyapproved, either by legislative bodies or by researchinstitutions. Human rights, as stated in internation-al charters or in national democratic constitutions,are a primary source of any such limits. Any limit tothe freedom of research can only be justified if itimplies the risk of infringing higher principles. Ifissues are not solved on the basis of a generallyagreed hierarchy and of the corresponding rights inthe field of scientific research, conflicts betweencompeting principles or rules should be dealt withby each researcher according to her/his conscience.

109.Communities can adopt specific sets of ethical stan-dards or codes of practice to be applied in their ownresearch fields. Such rules should also be stated for-mally and widely disseminated. They should be con-sidered as secondary sources of guidance forresearch activities.

110. Academic institutions may entrust ethical commit-

tees with the power to adjudicate on ethical issues.Such bodies should not behave as gate keepers whogive or deny access to research inflexibly, accordingto the opinions of their own members. Rather, theyshould draw their inspiration from freedom, self-criticism, precaution, respect and responsibility,taking into consideration that both science andethics change continuously and their achievementsare perpetually under challenge.

111. Research is an endless and critical quest. Althoughresearchers look for objective knowledge, they are fal-lible and should therefore abstain from presenting theoutcome of their activity as indisputable and unchal-lengeable truth. Openness to criticism and discussionwithin scholarly communities is therefore a primaryethical principle in research, irrespective of the specif-ic study field to which researchers belong.

112. Researchers must be aware that their own personalvalues and beliefs may influence their research.Therefore, they should be self critical and declare itwhen any of their beliefs or values might unduly biastheir findings.

113. Researchers may personally adopt stricter ethicalprinciples than those commonly practised by inter-national research institutions or emerging frominternational or national standards, and object inconscience accordingly. Yet such an attitude shouldnot turn into a prejudice of fundamental rights ofother people, or become a hindrance to the activity ofthe research teams with which they work, as well asto the fulfilment of common projects.

28


X.Cross-cutting issue: Ethics

Key points

• Recognise and promote freedom as the golden rule of research and as an indisputable, fundamental andinternationally recognised right of researchers, as well as democratically agreed limits to this freedom.

• Promote and maintain environments fostering research of high ethical standards, where mutual co-opera-tion and research integrity are valued and inappropriate conduct is identified and addressed.

• Promote or adopt specific sets of ethical standards or codes of practice to be applied in specific researchfields.

• Support the development of ethical committees with the power to adjudicate on ethical issues drawing theirinspiration from freedom, self-criticism, precaution, respect and responsibility.

22 The League of European Research Universities. (2010). Academic freedom as a fundamental right.

114. Any research activity must respect the intangibility,integrity, dignity and equality of human beings to thefull. Research conducted on human beings, irre-spective of the study field, can only be undertaken onthe basis of their informed consent, obtained afterdue and detailed information, except in those casesin which, according to legal and regulatory guide-lines, internationally agreed, consent is impossibleto achieve or not needed.

115. Researchers are also called upon to respect any otherliving being and the natural environment. Researchconducted on animals, plants or any kind of biologicalmaterials should be carried out in such a way that itmay avoid causing harm to living beings or minimisetheir suffering, as stipulated in several EU directives.

116. Covert research is not recommendable in principle,whereas it can be morally admitted to carry outinvestigations that undemocratic political agencieswish to bar or to disclose facts that they wish to hidefor the sake of their own power aims. The security,anonymity and privacy of the people involved in anymanner in research programmes should be grantedunconditionally. Anonymity, in particular, should berespected as far as the preservation of biologicalsamples and the access to databanks or biobanks areconcerned, under the standards and within the lim-its stated in international regulations.

117. The impact that scientific assumptions, discoveriesand research products may have upon nature or soci-ety should be taken into account by researchers atevery stage of their investigative activity.

118. The search for excellence and the respect for merit asthe only acceptable standard of evaluation ofresearch activity should be considered as ethicalprinciples per se. All researchers and all researchinstitutions are therefore expected to comply withthem. Full and unconditional respect must be grant-ed to authorship and the paternity of scientific dis-coveries and writings. Authorship should be attrib-uted to those contributors and collaborators whohave made a significant intellectual or practical con-tribution to the work. All funders and sponsors ofresearch should be clearly acknowledged.

119. Researchers are called upon to respect both themethods and the good practices of science. Thisdoes not imply a dogmatic and repetitive stancetoward established paradigms or codified researchprotocols, since such attitudes might curb innova-tion, but all departures from usual paths must be jus-

tified rigorously. Research methods and the sourcesof the data gathered should be disclosed in due timein order to allow their scholarly verification.

120.Researchers should recognise that conflicts of inter-est can inappropriately affect research. Potential oractual conflicts of interest should be identified,declared and addressed in order to avoid poor prac-tice in research or potential misconduct.

121. Researchers should not agree to conduct any proj-ects for which they do not feel to be wholly qualifiedor which are not sufficiently funded. In bidding forresearch projects, they should refrain from offeringto perform them without the resources deemed to benecessary and from any other unfair practice.Research funds, once obtained, must be used for thespecified purposes only.

122.Sponsors, either private or public, may have vestedinterests in the outputs of the research projects theystimulate or finance. Researchers should try toanticipate any issues that might arise as a result ofworking collaboratively and agree jointly on howthese might be addressed. Agreement should besought in advance on issues such as intellectualproperty, publication and attribution of authorship.Expectations must keep faith with the scientifichypotheses and investigation methods considered tobe scientifically appropriate for the purposes of theresearch conducted. Researchers should ensure thatthe vested interests of research sponsors do notinfluence the conclusions of their research.

123.Organisations should promote and maintain anenvironment which fosters and supports research ofhigh ethical standards, mutual co-operation andopen and honest exchanges of ideas. They shouldfoster a culture where research integrity is valuedand inappropriate conduct in research is identifiedand addressed.

29


XI. Final remarks

124.In this paper we have presented both high-level andconcrete recommendations towards the realisationof a better functioning European Research Area. Byway of conclusion, we would like to emphasise anumber of general principles on which our recom-mendations are premised and which we suggestshould serve as guiding principles for EU R&I policymaking:a) Basic (frontier) research is quite simply the foun-

dation for Europe's future competitiveness. Itrequires patience, persistence and investment.Innovation is a complex process, not a linear pro-gression of basic science into new products.Investment in the former needs to be unfaltering,especially in times of economic pressures, toensure the success of the latter.

b)Excellence in research is best stimulated throughEU-wide and global competition and by removingbarriers to such competition.

c) Diversity should be used and supported as aEuropean strength, based on the knowledge thatexcellence is not predicated on a single model andon the recognition that a one-size-fits-allapproach is often unrealistic and counterproduc-tive.

d)An overly prescriptive and regulatory approach isto be avoided as it clashes with the dynamic, versa-tile needs and trust-based nature of research andinnovation. A justified requirement of accounta-bility needs to be reconciled with the least amountof bureaucracy needed.

e) EU action in R&I policy should be guided by theprinciples of attribution, subsidiarity, proportion-ality and integration as defined in paragraph 90.

30


About LERU

LERU was founded in 2002 as an association of research-intensive universities sharing the values of high-qualityteaching in an environment of internationally competitive research. The League is committed to: education throughan awareness of the frontiers of human understanding; the creation of new knowledge through basic research, whichis the ultimate source of innovation in society; the promotion of research across a broad front, which creates a uniquecapacity to reconfigure activities in response to new opportunities and problems. The purpose of the League is to advo-cate these values, to influence policy in Europe and to develop best practice through mutual exchange of experience.

LERU publications

LERU publishes its views on research and higher education in several types of publications, including position papers,advice papers, briefing papers and notes.

Advice papers provide targeted, practical and detailed analyses of research and higher education matters. They antic-ipate developing or respond to ongoing issues of concern across a broad area of policy matters or research topics.Advice papers usually provide concrete recommendations for action to certain stakeholders at European, national orother levels.

LERU publications are freely available in print and online at www.leru.org.


Universiteit van Amsterdam

Universitat de Barcelona

University of Cambridge

University of Edinburgh

Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg

Université de Genève

Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

Helsingin yliopisto (University of Helsinki)

Universiteit Leiden

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Imperial College London

University College London

Lunds universitet

Università degli Studi di Milano

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

University of Oxford

Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris

Université Paris-Sud 11

Université de Strasbourg

Universiteit Utrecht

Universität Zürich

LERU Office

Huis BethlehemSchapenstraat 34B-3000 Leuven Belgium

tel +32 16 32 99 71 fax +32 16 32 99 68

www.leru.org [email protected]

Documents

T EUROPEAN R A : PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES · 2017. 12. 5. · THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA: PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES LERU RESPONSE TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION