Search

Dominique Foray defines the concept of smart specialisation, how it can be managed, and reflects on how Europe is finding its own way toward the knowledge economy...

The EU's scientific potential is increasingly flowing into the world of new scientific knowledge. The object of this paper is the communication interpretation of the Open Science policy, covering not only access and storage of scientific information and preservation of scientific information, but communication aspects also. Purpose of the study: Establish modern trends in the scientific ecosystem oriented towards facilitating the publication and communication of scientific results. Tasks of the study: Compare new solutions in science communication models in the most popular platforms, and explore what is the alternative to traditional scientific journals. Methodology/approach: The qualitative systematic review (qualitative evidence synthesis), scientific criticism of sociological surveys, methods of analytic and synthetic processing of primary and secondary resources, secondary data analysis and overview of scientific publications available in the libraries worldwide, have been used to obtain data about the impact of new EU solutions: the European Road Map for development of the European Research Area (ERA), the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, etc. A comparative analysis of innovation in publishing platforms was conducted with special attention to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's Gates Open Research platform. Results: The creators of the Gates Open Research platform defend the view of the rapid and socially beneficial effect of new and publicly-accepted scientific knowledge. The cutting-edge solutions are: transfer power from the hands of editors to the hands of the authors; minimize barriers or gatekeepers on the path of the new scientific outcome for society; assessment of the research not in view of the venue of publication but on the basis of the intrinsic value of the completed study; minimize the funds invested in publishing and dissemination. Implications: The conclusions can be important in identifying technological and ideological regularities for optimizing the model of scientific publications and increasing the speed and visibility of any scientific news., The authors would like to thank the students for their participation in the survey. This article is the result of a collaboration made possible by the support by the Sofia University Science Fund (contract number 80-10-205/17.04.2019).

The CALIPER project aims at driving a structural change process and implementing Gender Equality Plans in 7 Research Performing and 2 Research Funding Organizations, involving the highest and middle management levels since the beginning to impact the whole institution. The project goal is to make research organizations more gender equal by increasing the number of female researchers in STEM, improving their careers prospects and integrating a gender dimension in research. The project supports the 7 European RPOs (UZG, STU, ULB, NTUA, IRB, YU, UNILE) and 2 RFOs (SRNSF, UEFIS) of the CALIPER consortium in developing and implementing Gender Equality Plans (GEPs) focusing on an innovative approach based on engaging national and regional innovation ecosystems in the partners’ countries with a quadruple helix approach: the project triggers and makes internal changes and gender equality policies sustainable by orchestrating the core inward auditing/internal assessment and GEPs design with outward actions engaging external stakeholders to activate synergies at all different junctions of the ‘education-research- transfer to market of STEM research results’ chain. The assessment phase in each RPO/RFO is a critical step aimed at identifying and analysing as well as addressing existing gender bias and inequalities at each partner organization and at the local/national innovation ecosystem. This deliverable presents the CALIPER internal and external assessment Gender Audit Methodology guidelines and includes: an overview of the overall gender assessment methodology; a set of specific guidelines on how to perform internal assessment towards the identification of gender bias at the partner RPOs/RFOs; the detailed description of the two main parts of the above methodology: A set of indicators for quantitative assessment The participatory tools and exercises for qualitative assessment; a set of specific guidelines on how to perform the analysis of external framework conditions and of the innovation ecosystem from a gender perspective; a set of guidelines on how to best communicate to internal stakeholders about the CALIPER project and the assessment

What is the place of Brussels in the European research geography? Brussels is commonly recognised as the EU capital, but mainly for its political and administrative functions. As research is fundamental in a 'knowledge-based economy', this paper shows the performance of Brussels in terms of participation in EU R&D projects. Findings show a double role for Brussels: i) Belgian stakeholders perform well in the competition for R&D calls; ii) EU-related stakeholders contribute by establishing research networks, making Brussels the 'capital of the European Research Area'. The analysis is based on an innovative database of participation in Framework Programme projects from 1999 to 2010.

Integration of environmental science in society is impeded by the large gap between science and policy that is characterised by weaknesses in societal relevance and dissemination of science and its practical implementation in policy. We analyse experiences from BONUS, the policy-driven joint Baltic Sea research and development programme (2007–2020), which is part of the European Research Area (ERA) and involves combined research funding by eight EU member states. The ERA process decreased fragmentation of Baltic Sea science and BONUS funding increased the scientific quality and societal relevance of Baltic Sea science and strengthened the science-policy interface. Acknowledging the different drivers for science producers (academic career, need for funding, peer review) and science users (fast results fitting policy windows), and realising that most scientists aim at building conceptual understanding rather than instrumental use, bridges can be built through strategic planning, coordination and integration. This requires strong programme governance stretching far beyond selecting projects for funding, such as coaching, facilitating the sharing of infrastructure and data and iterative networking within and between science producer and user groups in all programme phases. Instruments of critical importance for successful science-society integration were identified as: (1) coordinating a strategic research agenda with strong inputs from science, policy and management, (2) providing platforms where science and policy can meet, (3) requiring cooperation between scientists to decrease fragmentation, increase quality, clarify uncertainties and increase consensus about environmental problems, (4) encouraging and supporting scientists in disseminating their results through audience-tailored channels, and (5) funding not only primary research but also synthesis projects that evaluate the scientific findings and their practical use in society – in close cooperation with science users − to enhance relevance, credibility and legitimacy of environmental science and expand its practical implementation.

The European Research Area (ERA), as conceived since its foundation, continues to develop as a parallel system that works alongside national policies on scientific research. This paper analyses some of the main strengths and weaknesses of ERA, also in the light of the preview of the latest Framework Programme (Horizon Europe). Twenty years since the launch of ERA, it can be observed that some member states, such as Italy, exploit European programmes while underfunding scientific research, whereas others, such as Germany, use ERA to complement internal policy. Insufficient concern for social aspects and the rights of researchers shown by ERA threatens the effectiveness of European Commission efforts.

The CALIPER project aims at driving a structural change process and implementing Gender Equality Plans in 7 Research Performing and 2 Research Funding Organizations, involving the highest and middle management levels since the beginning to impact the whole institution. The project goal is to make research organizations more gender equal by increasing the number of female researchers in STEM, improving their careers prospects and integrating a gender dimension in research. The project supports the 7 European RPOs (UZG, STU, ULB, NTUA, IRB, YU, UNILE) and 2 RFOs (SRNSF, UEFIS) of the CALIPER consortium in developing and implementing Gender Equality Plans (GEPs) focusing on an innovative approach based on engaging national and regional innovation ecosystems in the partners’ countries with a quadruple helix approach: the project triggers and makes internal changes and gender equality policies sustainable by orchestrating the core inward auditing/internal assessment and GEPs design with outward actions engaging external stakeholders to activate synergies at all different junctions of the ‘education-research- transfer to market of STEM research results’ chain. The assessment phase in each RPO/RFO is a critical step aimed at identifying and analysing as well as addressing existing gender bias and inequalities at each partner organization and at the local/national innovation ecosystem. This deliverable presents the CALIPER internal and external assessment Gender Audit Methodology guidelines and includes: an overview of the overall gender assessment methodology; a set of specific guidelines on how to perform internal assessment towards the identification of gender bias at the partner RPOs/RFOs; the detailed description of the two main parts of the above methodology: A set of indicators for quantitative assessment The participatory tools and exercises for qualitative assessment; a set of specific guidelines on how to perform the analysis of external framework conditions and of the innovation ecosystem from a gender perspective; a set of guidelines on how to best communicate to internal stakeholders about the CALIPER project and the assessment

Following the success of the Irish vote in October, the European Union looks likely to be growing in membership in 2004. At the same time, the EU continues to evolve new kinds of links between members and communal institutions. A potential new addition increasingly supported both by EU officials and many scientists and funding bodies from member states is a European Research Council (ERC). But, you may wonder, does European science need yet another organization?The Strasbourg-based European Science Foundation (ESF, www.esf.org), home of the European Research Conferences programme, strongly supports the case for the ERC. It has already established a high level expert group chaired by Richard Sykes, rector of Imperial College in London, to elaborate more detailed plans and publish a final report early next year. Meanwhile, the ESF also stays in touch with the grassroot opinions: inviting emails from researchers all over Europe, they have so far compiled 250 pages worth of opinion on the topic, most of it favourable. At the end of November, the ESF will make use of its annual members congregation to discuss and develop the idea further. Should the project take off, the ESF would be an obvious candidate to host the budding council in the startup phase.Further support comes from the Scandinavian research councils. In fact, Denmark has made the issue a key point of its current EU presidency. At a recent conference in Copenhagen, a majority consensus between the participating scientists and research managers emerged in a number of key questions.Most supported the idea of setting up an ERC as a funding body (rather than an advisory body) to promote the excellence and visibility of European research. The council should cover science, engineering, humanities and social sciences. Generally, it is seen as a crucial tool to make the European Research Area (ERA) competitive on a global scale. In contrast, it would not primarily address problems specific to some of the poorer countries joining the EU. In other words, it can help Polish researchers to work in Paris, but it would not pay them to stay at home, simply to stop the brain drain.Now comes the tricky part. Assuming that the council is widely accepted as a worthy cause, where should the money come from? Alternative scenarios mooted so far include variable mixtures of EU, national and private funding. As the EU expansion requires a major rethink of the entire organization and its finances, ERC supporters hope that this time is a window of opportunity where new funding streams can be generated for European science.While they call for ‘fresh money’ to generate ‘genuine added value’, the general reorganization should also be seen as a chance to incorporate existing funding structures such as the EU-funded postdoc and framework programmes. Ideally, the ERC should be the funding body for international science in Europe, not one of many competing organizations vaguely associated with the EU.Alternatively, the main funding agencies of the member states could each throw in a small proportion of their budget. Even though Germany's Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, www.dfg.de) has not yet made a formal decision on that issue, its president, Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker, is quoted as saying that he could imagine each agency contributing 0.5% of their budget originally, which could add up to around 25 million euros per year. Furthermore, the idea of private sponsorship to top up funds available from European and/or national sources has not yet been ruled out.As critics have pointed out, the trouble will be to keep the political agenda of whoever funds the council out of the running process. If it were to be mainly EU-funded, one could easily imagine the council being held back by endless disputes between member states with different interests. The summary of the Copenhagen meeting states that the council should be ‘accountable to its funders, but autonomous in its operations and run by highly respected scientists.’ This looks very good on paper, but may be easier said than done.Moreover, the experience from the existing programmes funding post-doc exchange between European countries show that the streams are very unevenly distributed. Obviously, the value of international collaboration and exchange is far from being equally appreciated in all countries. If the future ERC is to truly link European research communities together to reach a critical mass that is globally competitive, this experience needs to be considered carefully. If the ERC ended up funding the brain drain from poorer to richer EU countries, it would be a wasted opportunity.First steps towards realization of an ERC will include getting political endorsement from the member states, their funding agencies, and their scientists. This process, promoted by the ESF and the Danish EU presidency, is under way already. Then, the tasks of reorganizing existing resources and acquiring new ones should be clearly assigned to an existing body (e.g. the ESF) that could serve as the launch pad for the new council. Now that there is so much change in the EU, scientists will have to make sure that the changes benefit European science.

Rare diseases represent an important public-health issue, affecting 26-30 million persons across Europe, and a major challenge for research. The fragmentation of resources and knowledge for the 6000-8000 rare diseases and the lack of efficient treatments for many of them necessitate a coordinated European approach to unravel the underlying molecular defects and pathophysiological mechanisms. The low number of affected patients requires transnational collaboration with multidisciplinary approaches to map prevalences, build patient registries, identify biomarkers, develop new diagnostics and finally perform clinical studies for the development of treatments. To this end, 8 main European research funding organisations have gathered into the PF6-funded EC ERA-Net on rare diseases (E-Rare) (2006-2010) and developed a number of joint activities regarding systematic exchange of information and best practises, definition of strategic priorities, and, most importantly, joint funding activities through the launch and completion of two fully fledged joint transnational calls for research projects on rare diseases (2007 and 2009). This exemplary joint funding activity has attested the need of, and the acknowledgment from, the research community for transnational funding of collaborative, multidisciplinary and ambitious projects on rare diseases. It has leveraged funding for rare disease research in countries that do not have specific programmes for rare diseases and thus enabled the participation of researchers in these countries to transnational projects. A new E-Rare project (E-Rare-2) (2010-2014) aims at deepening and extending the cooperation among the E-Rare-1 and four new partner countries by systematic exchange of information, yearly launched joint calls, thorough assessment of the funding mechanisms and results of the funded research projects and, finally, strategic activities aiming at a sustainable development and extension of the network. Special attention will be given to the outreach and knowledge exchange with new Member States, countries outside of the European Union and key stakeholders/initiatives important for rare diseases. E-Rare-2 activities will thus further contribute to reducing fragmentation of research and resources through the enhanced coordination and transnational funding of excellent research on rare diseases, thereby shaping the European Research Area for rare diseases.

The European Union (EU) Heads of States regularly confirm that knowledge and innovation are critical to Europe's growth and agreed to make the EU the most competitive knowledge-driven economy. The EU's ability to facilitate innovation by strengthening its research capacities is central to achieving this goal. Some EU initiatives under this innovation policy integrate research capacities already existing in individual states through pan-European participation in collaborative projects in science and technology. The EU is financing a number of formal pre-competitive networking programs aiming at a better deployment of existing national research capacities via their inclusion in joint research initiatives. Although there is a general consensus that increasing levels of collaboration amongst researchers produce better results, the issue of research networking and of related research outcomes continues to generate debate with a wide variety of views on what roles such programs play and their general implications for research and scientific performance. As the EU Framework Programme 7 is coming to its end, this paper explores whether such formal networking programs contribute to facilitating innovation in the European Research Area by enabling Science and Technology participants to achieve anticipated research outcomes from their involvement in such programs.

The project, VERAM "Vision and Roadmap for European Raw Materials", aims to deliver a mapping of on-going initiatives on non-food, non-energy raw materials (including metals, industrial minerals, aggregates and wood) at European, Member State, and regional levels both from the Research and Innovation (R&I), industry, and policy perspectives. Moreover, based on a comprehensive gap analysis, VERAM will propose a common long term 2050 Vision and Roadmap in coordination and cooperation with all stakeholders across the value chain. For the first time, two European Technology Platforms (ETPs) together with their corresponding European Research Area Networks (ERA-NETs) are joining forces to develop a common roadmap.