Estonia in particular and Europe in general ought not be scattering taxpayer money in their search for economic growth and new jobs; rather, the euros should be channelled into fields promising best returns for economy and society, says Maive Rute, resources chief for research and innovations directorate, at European Commission, in an interview to Postimees.
EU industry commissioner says European industry needs a renaissance. Personally, you’ve said Europe needs an awakening. From this, one gets the impression that we’re in the Dark Ages, Europe deep in sleep. Why so?
It’s no surprise that, after the lengthy wellbeing and economic growth, the effect has been somniferous. The crisis has almost awoken us, member states have harshly reviewed many a priority. Still, let me continue to underline that the use of our common money must be discussed with increasing depth i.e. where could we get the best results for employments and common wellbeing. In science and innovation, Europe continues as a leading producer of general knowledge; even so, that will not grant the society at large new growth and jobs.
Where should these jobs come from? Industry?
Thinking where we want to invest, it’s not industry alone but also the integration of industry and services. Very interesting growth spots emerge as you merge these fields. While, in Europe, the role of services is large as it is, we should not take a narrow view – of beauty parlours or tourism, say – just as industry isn’t merely a factory.
Services also encompass all kinds of information and communication technology solutions which make industrial projects more effective or set consumers, clients and producers on a common foundation. Integration like that births new ideas. Growth comes from touch points of science and industry, and of services and industry.
You were presenting, in Tallinn, a future cooperation program awarding €8bn, of the next science budget, for such projects involving industry. Why is it important to pour public money into industry, like this?
This is the part of the larger framework programme Horizon 2020 (to finance research and innovation – edit) where substantial sums are placed into specific fields in cooperation with the private sector. It is hoped that, on the one hand, innovation will thus be significantly boosted, leading to more quality results.
The newest initiatives of the program include use of biological resource, and this should form quite a standalone sector. Currently, chemical industry never talks to farmers, for instance, about the raw material the latter need. By creating a joint platform, creation of the value chain should be enhanced. With other initiatives, this already exists, having functioned for five-six years.
You have underlined that European research tends to excel in volume, not in impact. What holds back the breakthrough?
Looking at the top ten percent of most quoted scientific articles, in many fields the US scientists have the lead. Europe does have its fields like space studies and several fields of energy; even so, when it comes to areas where Europe produces most publications, we are not the world leaders, don’t have the greatest impact. This is something to think about. The areas where we have some stars, however, are not necessarily the largest volume-wise. This is the overall European research: lots of good, not enough of the excellent.
Seeing the Asian countries forcefully advancing lately, the secret of their success seems to lie in – using the trendy term – smart specialisation.
For quite a while, South Korea has pursued a very bold and very focussed economic policy. They channel means to build up certain sectors of the economy. But that’s not all. They have also channelled means into higher education, and creating scientific potential. Glancing at the percentage of highly educated people among those aged 25–34, who are supposed to come out with innovative ideas, South Korea and Japan are amazing – at 55 percent plus. Europe has about 33 percent, the USA over 40 percent. Quantity will not necessarily equal quality, but this is also something to consider.
Focussed economic and education policy may indeed be a key to success; even so, could the EU really do that?
Means and decisions are on member-state level; the EU role is to help carry out the policies alongside the member-states; even so, we do not determine education and research policy. Obviously, it is the commission’s role to create cross-border cooperation and to support the top level which is harder to do within a member state. But organisation of universities and education, or teacher’s wage level – all these issues are in the member states’ own hands.
Same with innovation?
Of course, innovation policy is a lot wider than mere financing, this also includes creation of all kinds of framework conditions: how business-friendly is the legislation, how available the financing. Again, Europe’s role is to help spread good practice, give advice, and seek new opportunities to better enhance innovation. Each member-state has its places for decision making.
For preparation of the next seven years the economic crisis provided an excellent push. All programmes, the regional programmes and social fund resources, are much more directed towards innovation and laying direct foundations for economic growth. It is now prescribed that the means must largely go towards creating a basis for innovation and for energy economy, meaning that, thanks to the economic crisis, Europe has assumed a more forceful role to direct common resources towards establishing a foundation for growth.
According to critics of financing reform of Estonian research, a main problem is cutting the number of scientific jobs financed by the state, while orders for people with Doctoral degrees is on the increase, rather. In other words, public sector research no longer guarantees enough jobs for graduates. On the other hand, however, this seems to be what the European Commission desires: increasing the numbers of scientists employed in private sector. As you pointed out, in America and Asia, the percentage of scientists employed in private sector is much larger, as compared to Europe.
Well this is a bit of the chicken and the egg issue: which must come first, jobs in the private sector or the scientists and engineers to fill these. One will strengthen the other.
What is clearly lacking in Estonia is private sector investments into innovation and research and development. Research and economy must be better linked, by both ways; by supporting private sector research capability growth, adding qualified staff; and, on the other hand, try harder at developing business at universities. In our industry and economy as a whole, there is not enough added value, as there are not enough investments into innovation. Tackling this: solution for future economic growth and welfare society is having highly educated, Doctoral degree people who are not in social science and the humanities only, writing nice books, but are helping our companies be competitive on global arena.
Where are Estonia’s roles and options?
First of all, Estonia ought to take a critical look at where the resources go, currently, and whether they have produced results. As we know, Estonia has technology development centres program in place for quite some time now: why do these not provide the expected output? Or, if they do, how do we share the knowhow with others?
The next stage would be to better integrate endeavours by ministries and organisation. Before I came here, I looked at what your most important policy documents were; I see that on the one hand you’ve come out with the Knowledge-Based Estonia framework document, laying down innovation policy; meanwhile, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications issued, at the end of last year, a document to enhance enterprise. Isn’t it strange that, in a small country, there are continually two parallel activities? I hope these are well coordinated with each other, not going their own separate ways. One thing that could be done better is the inner harmony, to better finance focal points determined collectively. The state is small and should choose where to channel its resources. Seeing that, currently, research and economy go parallel and have not too many links, policy should help them have more touch-points.
Joint technological initiatives
• A part of EU research and innovation financing framework Horizon 2020 consists of joint technological initiatives, for which the 7-years budget line prescribes €8bn. Private enterprises are expected to table €10bn.
• Five fields have been selected: electronic components and systems; clean skies; fuel elements and hydrogen fuels; bioeconomy, and innovative medicines.
Source: European Commission