Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-17-Speech-1-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031117.7.1-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, my report is less controversial, but, I believe, no less significant. It makes the simple claim that Europe must invest more in research. The proportion of Europe’s gross domestic product devoted to research expenditure is to increase to 3% by 2010; one-third must be raised from public funds, and two-thirds to be contributed by industry. Only in this way can the European Union become the most competitive region in the world, which is what Europe’s Heads of State or Government called for in Lisbon as many as three years ago.
The Commission endorses this call and has calculated that, by 2010, industry’s expenditure on research will have to increase by 9% per annum, and the public contribution by 6% per annum, if this target is to be reached. We are nowhere near doing that. Even though the EU is more populous, the USA spends USD 140 billion more every year on research; the National Institute of Health, which deals solely with medicine as a life science, has USD 28 billion at its disposal – more than the whole of the rest of the world spends in this field. Its budget has doubled over the past five years, and, in 2004, it will be getting another billion dollars, itself equivalent to over two-thirds of the budget of the German Research Foundation. The National Science Foundation will also have its funding increased by 6%.
The USA is not alone, though, in increasing its expenditure on research, which is already at a high level; Japan has sharply increased its spending on research, even though its economy is flagging. In 1997, all parties in the Japanese parliament joined in taking the initiative in adopting a ten-year plan, with substantial rates of increase to encourage young scientists. Canada, which was facing economic recession some years ago, has consciously invested in science and technology and is now reaping the economic rewards of its efforts. In the past year alone, the sum of CAD 800 million was made available for the purpose of attracting foreign professors to the country. In Europe, by contrast, spending has been static and has, in some countries, even been reduced; despite all their pious utterances, most EU countries are cutting back on education and research. Fewer and fewer students are interested in physics, chemistry, mathematics and biology. Enterprises are moving their research to the USA. UNICE is already talking in terms of the threat of de-industrialisation. To be sure, there are exceptions: Sweden and Finland are showing us what everyone should be doing. Why is it, though, that it is the larger countries that are neglecting research? I have just received a letter from Italy, where a competition was held to appoint 1 600 scientists to university posts. They have now spent two whole years waiting to be appointed because the funding has not been made available.
Surely, though, this cannot be just about money; after all, we spend a lot of money on subsidising all sorts of things, including EUR 900 million from our budget for tobacco cultivation alone. It is evident that what we lack is not money but the right priorities; it is in the past that we invest rather than in the future. What is to be done? We have to change course, or else our repeatedly calling for a knowledge-based society in Europe will become a sad joke, and then nobody will take the EU seriously any more. It will be seen as a tired and enfeebled colossus, a continent filled with boastful babble, fragile and old, nothing more than a historical museum.
I therefore have three demands to make in the hope that Parliament, the Commission and Council will endorse them. Firstly, there must be an increase in private-sector expenditure on research; a rate of increase of 9% per annum would be feasible if we were to do as the Commission communication on research policy recommends. To do that, we have to try every incentive, including tax exemption.
Secondly, we have to increase public expenditure. What this means for the EU’s research budget is that the Seventh Research Framework Programme must run to at least EUR 30 billion. I might add, by the way, that this figure corresponds to the annual increase of 6% for public-sector research expenditure that I have called for and takes account of the growth in the EU’s size.
Thirdly, the EU should act on the advice of the scientific organisations and set up a European Research Council, from whose resources basic research would be funded. If we are to change course, the new policy has to be set out, so I suggest that we hold, before the European elections, a European Scientific Congress in Brussels or Strasbourg.
Enough has been written, enough has been said; the Commission, too, has presented a convincing document. Enough of statements of intent; now is the time for action."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples