Carlos Salema, Professor Emeritus of ICT at the Instituto de Telecomunicações in Portugal, has followed the evolution of EU science funding closely through the years. Since 1986, he has been the Portuguese delegate to the Programme Committee, advising the European Commission on the ICT research work programmes.
Here, Professor Salema talks to Science|Business about the main changes he seen to over the years, remaining regulatory weaknesses and the areas where Europe has led in ICT.
Q: You have worked on the Framework Programmes for many years. What is your impression of their evolution?
A: Perhaps one of the biggest changes, apart from the rules of participation and cost eligibility, is the sheer growth in size of the programmes. I recall that RACE, a 4-year programme in Framework Programme 2, had a budget of €500 million for telecommunications, whereas ICT, a 7-year programme in FP7, had in excess of €9 billion. I acknowledge that the scope has broadened, but one must keep in mind that managing a €9 billion programme is far more difficult than managing a €500 million one.
Another important change with direct effects on management is the increase in the number of member states and, with it, the number of possible participants that, in general, are less well known to the “old boys".
Now a further, perhaps more important change, will take place in Horizon 2020. Until now, Framework Programmes only funded pre-competitive R&D. Innovation - that is taking the products made possible by R&D to the market - was left out. That leaves researchers to face the difficulties of crossing the valley of death between R&D and the market.
In a big shift in emphasis, Horizon 2020 has taken up this challenge and innovation is now the buzz word. I am sure it will not be easy - if it succeeds, this will be a new landmark.
Finally, up to this point, Framework Programmes were organised by technologies - ICT, Materials, Manufacturing, and so on. In Horizon 2020 a very significant part of the budget will be devoted to societal challenges where different technologies will work together to achieve a given goal. I think this is positive but there are still quite a few hurdles to overcome - not least the evaluation of proposals.
Q: What is your general impression of the state of investment in science and research in Europe – do we need to do more at national level, or more at EU-level?
A: In the current economic and financial crises many European member states cut investment in R&D - even though it is pretty clear that investment, in science and elsewhere, is the only way out.
European spending on R&D comes 95 per cent from national budgets and 5 per cent from the EU. In theory one should only do at EU level that which cannot be done at national level (in line with the principle of subsidiarity). However, this is quite difficult to implement because of the significant differences between member states.
To me, one the most important results of EU investment in R&D, at least for the less-developed member states, is the learning process. By working together with the best, you learn a lot and you progress a lot. Of course this is difficult to measure, particularly in the short -term.
Q: How would you rate the state-of-play in Europe’s ICT market right now?
A: The ICT market in Europe is rather fragmented. Take for instance mobile data communications. There is no real technical reason that we still use tariffs. Mobile data communications are reasonably priced in each member state but outrageously expensive every time you cross a border. Internet access costs, on the other hand, are reasonable and a flat rate is the norm. Why then, are cross-border phone calls so expensive, if a zero-cost, or a much lower-cost alternative like Skype for example, exists?
Q: In the past, what have been Europe’s prominent ICT successes? \
A: I would say that the most prominent ICT successes in Europe were GSM, [Global System for Mobile Communications, the second generation mobile phone standard] and the DVB [Digital Video Broadcast] standard. These were adopted all over Europe and beyond, and underpinned commercial successes, with Nokia’s earlier mobile phone business as probably one of the finest examples.
A less obvious example is possibly the low power microprocessors required for the current generation mobile phones, where Europe is still in the lead.
Q: What areas of expertise would you like to see Europe exploit in the future?
A: To be successful, member states must work together and adopt standards. Let me take a couple of examples, toll roads and car parking charges, for instance. European technology exists to collect payments without the need to stop at toll booths or to use ticket machines in car parks, meaning there’s no need to carry coins or to install ticket vending machines. Will it be impossible to adopt a single technology, or compatible, interworking technologies, all over Europe?
Communications are important for Europe. Advanced communications are even more important, particularly for a continent with so many national languages. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could speak through an automatic translator that would break the language barrier?
Fibre optics offers almost unlimited bandwidth. Technology is there to make it available to all. Then the current price barrier for phone and video calls all over Europe could fall and the current flat rates would extend from one member state to the whole of Europe.
Europe also needs to be self-reliant in ICT and communications security. We cannot, or at least should not, rely on American or Chinese technology, as recent events have made very clear.
Receive the Funding Newswire each Tuesday, our Policy Bulletin each Thursday, and news about bridging Europe’s east-west innovation gap twice a month in The Widening. 
A unique international forum for public research organisations and companies to connect their external engagement with strategic interests around their R&D system.
