Four questions for the new Commission

On January 11 one of the high rituals of the Brussels political world will begin: Confirmation hearings in the European Parliament for a new Commission. To some, this will be the EU at its worst – much ado, mostly in Orwellian double-speak, about not very much. But for those concerned, as are we, with the future of research and innovation they are critically important.

In the new 27-member Commission there are no fewer than 16 portfolios that touch directly or indirectly upon the R&D and innovation agenda. Who holds those portfolios, and how they are managed, will have a profound effect over how easy it is for a scientist to get research grants, a technology entrepreneur to find investment, or an engineer to get a job.

Money is part of the reason: Brussels spends about 5 per cent of the total public sector R&D budget among the EU members. But the influence of the new Commissioners goes much further, affecting the EU-wide market for research and technology through regulation, enforcement, and policy development.

The good news is that, within the R&D community in Europe, some common opinions have started to emerge about what needs to be done in Brussels. We published a joint statement on December 7 of recommendations from five advisory bodies. As the hearings begin we urge Members of the European Parliament to refer to that statement.

But whatever policies emerge over the next few years, it’s certain that the hearings will be vital: the promises and positions staked out in the hearings will become political mandates.

R&D and innovation policy is a field full of jargon and waffle. To simplify, we suggest the Parliament boils it down in the hearings to just four questions:

1) What’s your job?

It is one of the many ironies of Brussels: on one hand, the Lisbon Treaty is supposed to make Brussels more efficient; on the other hand, in naming the people responsible for that, Europe’s political masters have spread the spoils so thinly that for any popular portfolio there will be at gaggle of people with a claim to decide policy over it.

Nominally, the new Research, Innovation and Science Commissioner Maire Geoghegan-Quinn will do what the title says. In fact, she will have several other Commissioners claiming pieces of the action: Industry and Entrepreneurship, Digital Agenda, Energy, Climate Action, Environment and others. For the Commission mandarins who actually have to make the system work, this will be a bureaucratic quagmire. Some early clarity on who does what would help.

2) How will you solve our greatest problems?

During 2009, a consensus built in Brussels that the EU’s flagship R&D effort, the €52.5 billion Framework Programme, should evolve over the next few years to focus on solving the “Grand Challenges” of (at the least) climate change, alternative energy, and healthcare for an ageing population. As expressed by one leading R&D economist, Luc Soete of the University of Maastricht, that’s a shift from the pace of technological innovation to the direction – from the means to the ends of R&D. All well and good, but what will this mean, in practical terms? What percentage of the Framework budget would be so designated? Who, among researchers and engineers, would be the winners and losers?

3) How much will this cost, and who’s paying?

Budget will be the biggest source of conflict in Brussels over the next few years. In centre court will be the farm fight: In what parallel universe does it make sense that 43 per cent of the EU budget goes mostly to subsidise rich farming corporations and landlords to produce excess food we don’t need? R&D fits into this conflict as a politically attractive alternative to price supports. How much better to spend money on job-creating innovations in energy, climate control or healthcare? But that masks a more difficult conflict: the perennial battle for power between Brussels and the national capitals. If the EU spends more on R&D than at present, it will step on more toes in the national research councils and ministries. Is that good or bad?

4) How will you make Europe more competitive?

Innovation is ‘in’. During 2009, politicians from Obama to Hu seized upon innovation as a way to put a positive spin on their massive economic stimulus programmes. ‘We’re not just buying jobs,’ goes the logic: ’we’re investing in our future.’ And so billions have been allocated to building more broadband networks, investing in schools, and pumping up research budgets for health and energy.

But how will that money – such as the €35 billion windfall for science in France – actually achieve its purpose? What new regulations, tax breaks, labour rules, investment funds or collaborative projects will be needed to get the products of this research bonanza into the marketplace? Ten years from now, will any of this historic spending have mattered where it counts: making Europe a more competitive, attractive place to live and work?

For all these questions, the Parliament’s role next week is simple: force the nominees to give clear answers.