1

STOAScience and Technology Options Assessment

STOA Panel meetingThursday, 18 January 2018, 09:30 - 11:00

LOW N1.4, StrasbourgMinutes

The meeting started at 09:39 with Eva KAILI, MEP and STOA Chair, in the chair.1. Adoption of the draft agenda The Chair announced that interpretation was available in the following languages: English, French, German

and Czech; and the meeting was being web-streamed. She then announced that, as there were no requests for changes or additions, the agenda was deemed adopted.

2. Approval of draft minutes - STOA Panel meeting of 14 December 2017 The Chair announced that the draft minutes of the Panel meeting of 14 December 2017 were in the dossier

and, as there were no requests for changes, they were deemed approved.

3. Presentation of the outcomes of the Technology Assessment study ‘Overcoming innovation gaps in theEU-13 Member States’

The Chair informed Members that the study was based on a proposal submitted by STOA Panel memberChristian EHLER and the Chair of the Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) Committee Jerzy BUZEK.

She noted that the European Union (EU) Framework Programmes (FPs) for Research and Innovation (R&I)were the EU’s primary instruments for the creation of the European Research Area. However, participationin the FPs appeared to be biased against an entire area of the EU, the so called ‘EU-13 countries’ (Bulgaria,Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia,Slovenia), which, after almost twenty years of access to the FPs, still lagged behind the ‘EU‐15’ (Austria,Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal,Spain, Sweden, UK), which absorbed a higher concentration of R&I funding.

She further noted that the aim of this study was to explore, identify and elucidate the reasons for the lowparticipation and success rate of EU-13 countries, in order to improve the situation in the future. The studyhad been carried out by the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), one of the STOA frameworkcontractors, under a specific contract managed by the Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA).

She then gave the floor to Mr EHLER, Lead Panel Member for this project, to introduce the presentation. Mr EHLER emphasised that he expected the study to provide an important contribution in clarifying the

differences in performance under EU FP funding between the EU-13 and EU-15 countries. He asserted that, when R&I projects are unsuccessful, it is usually due not to lack of scientific excellence,

but rather to deficiency in management. He argued that additional instruments needed to be created toimprove managerial skills for the preparation of research proposals. A positive example was Austria, whichhad used Structural Fund and national funding to increase skills, in order to apply for EU research funding.

He also mentioned that, in the past, a ‘fast-track’ procedure for EU-13 countries had been suggested tofacilitate their participation in EU research programmes, and this could be a solution in the future.

The Chair then presented Michal PAZOUR and Vladimir ALBRECHT from the Technology Centre of theCzech Academy of Sciences (CAS) and briefly highlighted their professional backgrounds.

Mr PAZOUR explained that the study was coordinated by KIT, and jointly conducted by CAS and theRathenau Institute in The Netherlands. The aim was to understand why EU-13 countries participated less inthe FPs, why they were less successful, and what could be done to increase their participation in future FPs.

He then presented the study’s methodological approach. First, from a literature review 11 hypotheses weredeveloped for the EU-13’s lower participation from five different perspectives: quantity and quality ofparticipants; conditions for collaboration and networking; environmental conditions (quality and level ofdevelopment of national R&I systems); time (it was too soon to expect a rise in participation rates, as EU-13R&I actors still had to prove their capabilities); design, governance and implementation of the FP (theproblem was specific to certain instruments in the 7th FP (FP7) and in Horizon 2020, and the EU-13 had

2

little influence in the preparation of FP Work Programmes). These hypotheses were subjected to both data-based empirical testing and to qualitative assessment. The latter consisted of a questionnaire sent to morethan 400 research teams working within FPs in the EU-13, and 21 structured interviews with representativesof ministries from EU-13 Member States, representatives of the European Commission and policy experts.

He then explained that the study confirmed four main reasons and factors for the relatively low participation:(i) The EU-13’s R&I systems were weaker, with lower expenditure and lower innovation performance.

According to European Innovation Scoreboard data, all EU-13 countries ranked lower in indicatorsmeasuring research systems, although they had improved their positions between 2008 and 2015.

(ii) The proposals that involved participants from the EU-13 were of a lower quality.(iii) Applicants for FP funding from the EU-13 had weaker European research collaboration networks.(iv) More than half of the FP7 budget was allocated to the top 15 organisations in Europe, which had a very

high level of success with their project proposals. The EU-13 had a low level of collaboration with thetop 15 European research organisations.

He also presented some hypotheses for the low participation, which were not confirmed:(v) There were not enough eligible participants in the EU-13 relative to the EU-15.(vi) Potential participants in the EU-13 had alternative and more easily accessible funding opportunities.(vii) It was too soon to expect a rise in participation rates, as EU-13 R&I actors still had to prove their

capabilities.(viii) The EU-13 had insufficient influence on FP Work Programmes.

Mr PAZOUR stated that five policy options had been formulated. He emphasised that responsibility for theirimplementation should be shared at different levels: organisational, national and EU.(i) Creating national and regional hubs for European R&I collaboration. National and EU structural

funding should be used to leverage FP funding; increased contributions should create modern and well-equipped infrastructure leading to better integration in European research networks. It was alsonecessary to improve organisational capabilities.

(ii) Improving governance of national R&I systems: this would involve strengthening the strategicmanagement of research organisations, introducing periodic evaluations of research organisations andmoving towards greater international collaboration.

(iii) Better understanding and use of FP outputs: displaying useful outputs, e.g. through national proof ofconcept schemes, could be an important motivating factor for research teams to apply for other projects.

(iv) Strengthening the role of National Contact Points, which assisted in preparing proposals, betterexplaining the goals of EU R&I policy and formulating projects with a European added value. It wasalso important to mobilise experts from the EU-13 to actively participate in the management of FPs,and be part of EU evaluation and advisory bodies, so that they better understand EU R&I objectives.

(v) Expanding the ‘Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation’ Programme; motivating nationalresearch organisations to improve their strategic management, reinforce good governance practices andencourage collaboration with the top 15.

The Chair then gave the floor to Magda DE CARLI, Head of the ‘Spreading Excellence and WideningParticipation’ Unit in the European Commission’s Directorate-General for R&I.

Ms DE CARLI acknowledged the importance of the study for the current discussions on FP9 and stated thatthe Commission always welcomed such additional evidence-based analyses when evaluating Horizon 2020.The conclusions of the study were in line with the Commission’s interim evaluation on the same subject.

The Chair gave the floor to in interested Members for questions / discussion Danuta JAZŁOWIECKA, MEP and STOA Panel member, asked Mr PAZOUR to elaborate on the mentioned

barriers to participation. She also enquired if the top 15 would be open to the suggested collaboration. Evžen TOŠENOVSKÝ, MEP and STOA Second Vice-Chair, noted that, based on his experience on a Czech

research project management board, a major difficulty, when applying for project financing from StructuralFunds, were the bureaucratic procedures. It was much simpler to receive funding from earlier FPs than it wasfrom Horizon 2020. He suggested that new solutions should be developed for research centres which did nothave the managerial staff able to put together a complicated project proposal as required by Horizon 2020.

Mr EHLER enquired if it was possible to differentiate between types of participants in the FPs (either fromuniversities or industry). He also noted that universities often had trouble achieving internationalisation. Heremarked that links between industry and academia were weak in the EU-13, but strong in the EU-15.

3

Therefore he asked if the low participation shown in the report was a reflection of the low participation ofuniversities or of the industry. He also emphasised the importance of differentiating between the participationin different EU-funded research programmes. To illustrate this, he mentioned that at least some JointUndertakings, for instance Clean Sky, had proven to be quite successful for the EU-13. He finally requestedMr PAZOUR’s opinion on whether the ‘fast-track’ procedure could be a solution for some EU-13 countries.

Responding to Ms JAZŁOWIECKA’s question on barriers, Mr PAZOUR noted that barriers for motivationto submit arose from low success rates. It was especially worrisome for industries to invest in projects witha track record of below 10% success rate. Other reasons were insufficient options for exploitation of projectresults and the fact that EU-13 national systems did not sufficiently emphasise international collaboration.

In response to Ms JAZŁOWIECKA’s second question, he remarked that the lack of readiness to collaboratewith the top 15 seemed to arise from a chronic lack of research networks with international organisations,the creation of which needed time and could not be developed only for applying for EU funding.

In response to Mr EHLER, Mr PAZOUR said that additional remarks would be added in the final version ofthe study concerning the different participation rates of universities and industry within the EU-13, includinginformation on the ‘fast-track’ procedure.

The Chair thanked the experts and announced that, as there were no objections, the study would be finalisedtaking into account the comments made by Members during the discussion and it would then be publishedon the STOA website and widely distributed within and outside the European Parliament (EP).

4. Ongoing and new STOA projects The Chair announced that all ongoing STOA projects were running to schedule. She also informed Members about the recent launch of three STOA projects – ‘Galileo satellite navigation

system: return on investment of space applications on earth’, ‘Internet addiction’ and ‘Technologicalinnovations in offshore gas operations in the Eastern Mediterranean’ – as well as the forthcoming launch ofthe project ‘Algorithmic opportunities and accountability’.

5. STOA Annual Lecture 2018 - First discussion The Chair announced that the STOA Annual Lecture 2018 should normally be combined with the EPTA1

Conference, which STOA would organise, most probably in November 2018, in the context of the EPTAPresidency held by STOA in 2018. The STOA Bureau had discussed possible topics starting with theoutcome of a brainstorming, which had taken place within the Secretariat and centred on cybersecurity, datasecurity (big data, medical data) and protecting digital infrastructure. The Bureau had agreed in principle,but had asked that the topic be broadened to include artificial intelligence and quantum computing, as wellas elements of STOA’s ‘silos and pipes’ strategy.

She then encouraged Members to react to this broad proposal and contribute their own ideas concerning theseand, possibly, other topics they would like to give priority to.

6. STOA workshops and joint activities with external organisations6.1. Forthcoming events

No events were discussed.6.2. EPTA Presidency 2018 - Planned activities

The Chair announced that in 2018 STOA would be holding the annual Presidency of EPTA. She informed the Panel that STOA’s main task would be to coordinate the network’s activities and host the

annual EPTA Council meeting and Conference, as well as the annual Directors’ meeting, using for thispurpose the Parliament’s budget. In addition, it had to cover the hosting costs of the EPTA website, coverpossible local transportation costs of the Directors during their meeting, and invite speakers to the conference.

The Chair noted that the 2018 Directors’ meeting would be held during the May plenary session inStrasbourg, combined with a major STOA event was co-organising with the European Research Council.The Council meeting and Conference would be held in Brussels, most probably in November, with theconference being combined with the STOA Annual Lecture 2018.

The Chair finally announced that, as there were no objections, the Secretariat would implement theseactivities along these lines, in close cooperation with the STOA Bureau, reporting regularly to the Panel.

1 European Parliamentary Technology Assessment network

4

6.3. STOA Workshop ‘EU mission-oriented R&I policy - Reflections toward the next FrameworkProgramme’

The Chair informed the Panel that this workshop would offer an opportunity to understand the EuropeanCommission’s strategy for a mission-oriented approach to EU R&I policy, in view of the next FP.

7. Visits/ External activities7.1. STOA delegation to INNOVEIT2, 16-17 October 2017, Budapest - Feedback

The Chair highlighted the positive results of the participation by herself and Paul RÜBIG, MEP and STOAFirst Vice-Chair, in INNOVEIT.

7.2. EPTA3 Council meeting and Conference, 7-8 November 2017, Lucerne - Feedback The Chair gave the floor to Ms JAZŁOWIECKA to convey her impressions from the meeting.

Ms JAZŁOWIECKA reported that her experience was positive and highlighted the interesting lecture onhow to encourage children to play an active role in defining mobility choices for the future.

7.3. World Science Forum, 7-11 November 2017, Amman - Feedback The Chair then gave the floor to Mr RÜBIG, who reflected on the bilateral meeting which took place on 9

November with Her Royal Highness Princess Sumaya bint EL HASSAN (Chair of the Jordanian RoyalSociety and Champion of the World Science Forum 2017), where, inter alia, he handed over the letter invitingHer Royal Highness to become a member of the European Science-Media Hub International Advisory Board.The princess had accepted the invitation and promised to come back to STOA in writing.

7.4. STOA participation in ESOF4 2018, 9-14 July 2018, Toulouse - First discussion The Chair informed the Panel of the availability of four places on the STOA delegation, authorised by the

EP Bureau in December 2017, and invited Members to voice their interest if they wished to attend.

8. Any other business No other business was raised.

9. Date and place of next meeting The Chair announced that the next Panel meeting was scheduled for Thursday, 8 February, at 09:30 in the

same room (LOW N1.4), and would include the presentation of the in-depth STOA workshop report‘New technologies and regional policy - Towards the next Cohesion Policy framework’.

The meeting ended at 11.04.ANNEX

List of participantsSTOA Panel membersMs Kaili, Mr Rübig, Mr Tošenovský, Mr Albrecht, Mr Coelho, Ms Delvaux, Mr Ehler, Ms Jazłowiecka,Ms Schmidt.

Other MembersMs Moody.

Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA)Mr Karapiperis, Mr Boucher, Mr Quaglio, Mr Evrard.

Other participantsMs Schwendinger (Assistant to Mr Rübig), Ms van Ellen (Assistant to Mr Ehler) Mr Schichl (Assistant toMs Schmidt), Ms De Carli (European Commission - DG RTD), Ms Karanjac (Council of Europe), Mr Corsi(European Patent Office).

2 EIT's Innovation Forum; EIT: European Institute of Innovation & Technology3 European Parliamentary Technology Assessment network4 EuroScience Open Forum