ITALIAN CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEBATE ON
THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN RESEARCH
20 February 2001

The present document, which aims at presenting some Italian comments on the future of European research and on the main lines of the next Framework Programme, derives from the most significant indications expressed in the Commission’s Communications (“Towards a European Research Area”  of 18.1.2000 and “Making a reality of the European Research Area: Guidelines for EU research activities (2002-2006)” of 4.10.2000), in the study carried out by IPTS/JRC on “Emerging thematic priorities for Research in Europe” of 4.12.2000, and in the Research Council conclusions, as outlined in the Resolution adopted on 16 November 2000.
The Italian position herewith formulated is based upon the experience matured within the EU FP5 and on its careful monitoring, carried out so far by the national evaluation authorities.
On the basis of the above, Italy agrees on the urgent need for concrete steps towards a European Research Area. Such belief recently guided the significant internal process of reform of the whole national research system undertaken at the institutional, regulamentary and strategic levels, and which culminated with the approval – in december 2000 – of the three year National Research Plan (PNR). The principles and objectives of the Plan are largely coherent with those underlying the above European proposals.
Italy can therefore not only fully support the desired perspectives for the future European research, but also proceed in tune with the major orientations aimed at realising them through a renewal of its national research system and the definition of relevant operational lines, and by earmarking consistent financial resources on the basis of the strategic value of S&T goals.
The comparison between the internal evolution and the future European scenario, as carried out in the Italian Conference on ERA promoted by the Government on 25 January 2001 in Rome, confirmed this significant coincidence. In the Conference debate, the need for a better harmonisation of Member States national research plans with research activities promoted by the EU strongly emerged. Such harmonisation should be based on the full application of the subsidiarity principle as a means to maximise the added value of Community actions for research.

EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA
The project – which Italy fully endorses and originally contributed to  with Antonio Ruberti’s initial reflections and stimulus - is complex and ambitious, and requires the mobilisation of more resources than at present, and a deeper commitment by all institutions involved, both of Member States and the EU, to achieve the expected goals.
In order to improve the impact of research on the European economy and society complementary actions and, at the same time, their diversification should be strongly fostered, if the limits of the only operational instrument at present, the framework programme, are to be overcome; a consequent revision of instruments and support modalities is needed so as to make them more functional to the progressive creation of ERA, and to strongly link them to a closer integration between Member States’ and EU policies.
As a strategy to be pursued with more determination, Italy would suggest to identify a coherent group of aggregated actions – in terms of plurality of subjects and multiplicity of objectives - to be modelled on the “clusters” scheme. With the same aim, the potentialities offered by the “variable geometry” mechanism, as a suitable way to develop an adequate flexibility in the realisation of entire thematic programmes, are worth being explored.
Collaboration amongst groups of countries around common objectives must in fact be seen as an intermediate passage from independent programmes, decided and carried out by single countries, to an integrated system undertaken at EU level: this is a desirable ultimate objective, although not an immediate one.
These possible evolutions should constantly be accompanied by a punctual and constant evaluation of the coherence and functionality of the chosen instruments with respect to the determined objectives.
Within the complex work of creating a European Research Area, Italy therefore supports the need for a balanced transition phase between continuity and renewal, which would save the scientific community and industries from the disorientation and inefficiencies otherwise provoked by a sharp change in direction and method.
Italy also wishes to highlight the need, in the next framework programme, to guarantee a primary role to basic research: its fundamental function in support of a positive evolution of Europe towards a knowledge-based society and its pulling role for applied research is widely recognised. The effort to foster research should be combined with an appropriate operational flexibility in order to create, through a bottom up approach, suitable support measures for “curiosity-driven” activities as instruments to explore new opportunities for research, as well as programmes finalised at socio-economic objectives.
A specific commitment should be taken to connect strategic research with development activities in order to effectively contribute to the progress of the European system  at production, economic and social level, and to the necessary increase of its outward competitivity and internal cohesion.
In fact, it is not sufficient for Europe to produce much knowledge and information if these cannot be translated in valuable results both for social growth and employment, and for the renewal of its productive organisation, in a framework of strong sustainable development.

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
Italy agrees on the principle of concentration of the European intervention by allocating a consistent part of the next framework programme’s funding to a limited number of strategic programmes for which Community support represents a real European added value with respect to single Member States’ actions. Such concentration should however translate into the articulation of programmes on a coherent series of high quality integrated projects of various dimensions, which would be accessible to a number of subjects of different nature and size.
The operational scheme to be adopted should allow for an harmonious weaving of major technological strategies, which Europe can not renounce to if it wants to be part of the international scenario of economic development (microelectronics, post-genomics, communication and information technologies, nanotechnologies and microsystems, intelligent manufacturing), and selected priority macro-objectives with direct impact on Europe’s economic and social growth and on sustainability of development (quality of life, environment, safety, food technologies, energy, integrated systems of mobility, knowledge society, science and society, “e-governance”).
Within this mix of enabling horizontal technologies and strategic thematic sectors (which could be also pursued through the “clusters” experience), access to Community resources should be ruled by a quality-based wide participation system, both in term of S&T contents and of European added value (subsidiarity, complementarity and sinergy of know-how and structures, critical mass of human and financial resources).
Once again Italy would like to stress that the scheme of big projects should not be rigid, but be adapted to the single thematic areas. A quota of funds to be available for medium size projects (even “clusterised” projects), to better stimulate small and medium size subjects in particular, is an evident need.
The experience of FP5 demonstrates that results achieved within macro-sectors corresponding to Europe’s specific requirements (as is the case of cultural heritage, which Italy strongly supported) were able to start a virtuous process of innovative technologies development and valorisation otherwise not obtainable with the effort of individual countries. This is the path to follow.

RESEARCH, INNOVATION AND SMEs
The principle of concentration should not exclude a balanced availability of resources in favour of research actions characterised by a wide level of flexibility, less bound to long-term objectives, open to activities in support of strongly economic- and occupational-oriented areas, such as the SMEs sector.
In such a context, a specific activity should be envisaged, on the “Exploratory Awards – CRAFT” model, with relevant financial autonomy. In continuity with FP5, positive experiences undertaken therein, like Economic and Technological Intelligence projects, should be valued and continued. Experimentation of any new instrument, such as “collective research”, can not do without a strategy of direct involvement of SMEs in the research projects, corresponding to their actual needs.
Given the European dimension of innovation, concentration on few actions drawing from the positive experiences of the Innovation programme is desirable (ie. Policies – Benchmarking, Networks – IRCs, Projects – Innovation Project).
Within a wider scenario which goes beyond the Framework Programme, actions should be taken to update forms and instruments of cooperation as provided, for instance, by the Eureka initiative, to adapt them to the European Research Area perspectives (and to SMEs needs in particular).

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURES AND CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE
•	Research Infrastructures
Italy fully supports the need for a European approach to research infrastructures, as indicated in the first Commission communication on ERA and, similarly, the measures envisaged in the following document “Making a reality of the European Research Area”,  to improve the use of existing facilities and to develop new infrastructures.
On this basis, Italy considers research infrastructures as essential instruments to science, technology and innovation and deems that a common effort should be undertaken to overcome present shortcomings of the European system and to boost Europe’s competitiveness at world level.
Targeted actions should be taken to upgrade and consolidate existing infrastructures, to optimise their use by the largest possible number of researchers (from Europe and third countries) and to increase private and financial involvement in their activities.
The development of new infrastructures should respond to wide consultation and discussion at different levels (national, bilateral, multilateral, “variable geometry”) so as to ensure the direct expression of research and technological needs by the scientific community.
Any EU contribution to cover building and operation budgets should be limited in time and scope, especially within the Framework Programme. The existing support measures therein, modified as appropriate, should be maintained given the successful results achieved so far. Moreover, it would be desirable that diversified sources of funding, public and private, be pooled and combined in order to support the financial burden and long-term operation commitment needed to run such infrastructures.
A better coordination should be finally ensured to fully exploit the potential of the most advanced information and communication systems and electronic networks (in particular the opportunities offered by computational Grids and the high speed telecommunications backbone GEANT) in virtually linking medium and small size infrastructures.
•	Centres of excellence
As to the choices to be made in this context, Italy agrees on the opportunity to strengthen European centres of excellence and particularly their networking, in a perspective of integration of resources and know-how and development of public-private partnerships on strategic research activities.
In this light, Italy is in favour of mapping centres of excellence, provided this does not imply a predetermined, definite and static scenario. We would rather privilege a selection based on the principle of the centres’ capacity to achieve acknowledged scientific excellence at international level (the so-called “auto-proposition”, to be further verified).
The concept of centre of excellence should therefore be linked to that of high quality research groups capable of establishing a “network of excellence” operating on common objectives and programmes, while meeting the principle of competition and periodical evaluation.

HUMAN RESOURCES 
It is fundamental to further support new conditions for European researchers and favour their mobility, not necessarily within the projects development - as is repeatedly underlined in the Commission’s communications (and also in the Italian National Research Plan). ERA should evolve in a way as to attract and mobilise existing human resources and a new generation of young European researchers.
Mobility, that is an opportunity rather than a necessity, is crucial as a dynamic catalyst of the huge potential for collaboration in research and knowledge dissemination all over the continent. Appropriate measures are therefore needed in this direction.
Destination, duration, research sectors ought to be more flexible, thus ensuring adequate conditions to mobility as defined above. In this respect, we deem that adequate measures should offer new and actual opportunities for post-graduates wishing to embark on scientific and research careers.
Intersectorial mobility between academia and industry (especially for SMEs) is essential as much as the enhancement, through specific measures, of the flow of qualified women and men researchers towards production, and the promotion of new salary levels and of better working conditions.
The gradual process of removing the current obstacles to mobility - represented at present by the lack of homogeneity in rules and treatment at administrative, fiscal, previdential, and health level as well as in regulations of scientific careers - could greatly benefit from clear guidelines by the Commission with a view to the realisation of the European Research Area.
We would also support the prospect of receiving third country researchers in the EU, and strongly favour concrete mechanisms for return of top-level European researchers currently working outside the European continent.

JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE
In the ERA perspective, the role of JRC shall be confirmed as unique, independent, neutral and high level scientific and technical structure, providing a service of common expertise to European institutions and supporting decisional processes on delicate and topical central questions (quality of life, food safety, environment and safety, consumers’ protection): these today represent the crucial point on which credibility and trust between institutions and citizens in the scientific sector are mostly at risk.
The next Framework Programme, in this context, will be a privileged instrument to solve the present uncertain perspectives of the JRC role, to strengthen its structures and to identify strategic actions and programmes which could be functional to the setting up of ERA.
Within the JRC renewed mission, the valorisation of its structures and the increased impulse of its activity will also enable the desired fostering of the opportunities in the field of training and mobility of researchers (young ones in particular).

IMPLEMENTATION MEANS
The selection procedure based on public calls for proposals, as well as the evaluation principle based on the “peer-review” system, should still be guaranteed in the future. Nonetheless, recent experience leads to certain considerations.
First of all, an adequate system should be devised and applied in order to avoid the exclusion of potential proposers for whom the complexity and duration of procedures represent a serious obstacle, thus sparing their resources and time.
Secondly, to be efficient and positive, the projects’ selection mechanisms require that the experts chosen by the Commission possess adequate competences for such task and their high-level competence be recognised by their home countries.
Furthermore, for transparency’s sake, it is necessary to establish clear rules governing the evaluation of the strategic relevance of projects. Incoherent mechanisms of evaluation should be avoided so as to prevent evaluation lists from being overturned and re-grouped, or that projects are moved between the reserve list and the main list without due motivation.
As for the possibility of outsourcing certain activities, we are not against it in principle, as long as there is a clear definition of the objectives, the advantages and the conditions of economisation and transparency which must be fulfilled, and comprehensive safety measures preventing possible conflicts of interest are included.
In order to overcome the current evident rigidity and excessive bureaucracy, the management modalities of the next framework programme should be characterised by simple and fast procedures, so as to complete the necessary steps in such a timeframe as is coherent with research activities which intends to place themselves at the forefront of competitivity and scientific excellence.

SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
In a knowledge-based society and a globalisation era, the close interaction of policy and science is a fundamental element to identify common problems of international dimension, to pursue coherent and sustainable policies and to take due consideration of the social consequences of scientific and technological progress.
Europe must daily face common issues (and emergencies), which can only be efficiently solved with a joint response from all Member States. In this context Italy considers the ethic implications of research and the use of the precautionary principle as essential to the European system, issues we are very sensitive to.
A European coordinated approach should also be applied to foresight, monitoring and evaluation activities through a better integration of national and international initiatives.

Italy also strongly favours specific actions aimed at raising public awareness on science and technology through scientific diffusion activities (as already provided for both at national level and in the present FP5), and at encouraging and developing a deeper dialogue amongst the scientific community, institutions, political decision-makers, citizens and industrialists.
Of equal importance are actions directed at attracting young people to scientific studies in order to face the present decreasing trend, which all Europe is reporting, in scientific faculties registrations and the present reluctance of postgraduates in embarking in research careers.
Finally, Italy supports the commitment already taken by the Commission in significantly enhancing women’s presence and role in science and research, while ensuring – at national level – similar efforts and continuous initiatives in this direction, as also provided for in the National Research Plan.

INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION OF EUROPEAN RESEARCH
In the next Framework Programme, the dimension of international cooperation and relations with Third countries must not be considered as a sporadic and optional component within the single programmes, but should continue to represent an autonomous activity. Its role should be played both within the thematic activities, and to develop themes of strong interest for the development of cooperation with non European countries.
The European Research Area is based on and characterised by the idea of an open area, also with the contribution of FP Associated European countries. Italy would particularly support a “Euro-Mediterranean research area”.
The concrete commitment taken by the Lisbon European Council to render our continent an increasingly competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based economic area must not lead us to ignore the rightful, parallel contribution we should continue to give, and increasingly so, to developing countries, and particularly those closer to Europe’s geopolitical priorities (such as the Mediterranean basin). The more so, since a considerable increase in term of partnership agreements for scientific and technological research and high level training is expected by such countries, as emerged within the informal meeting of Mediterranean Research Ministers promoted by the Italian Government in Capri on 29-30 September 2000, where the Research Commissioner also took active part.
A political orientation of this kind – besides underlining the potential for integration between the opposite shores of the Mediterranean sea and confirming the role of research as a means of dialogue, peace and safety – will furthermore enable to face problems of high social relevance which are correlated to the concrete perspectives of regional sustainable development (including the necessary capacity to give mature political answers to south-north migration flows).

A concrete follow-up is therefore possible of both the recommendations of the five-year assessment panel of the INCO programme, and the appeal of the Foreign Ministers of the 27 countries involved in the so-called “Barcelona process”, reiterated on 16 November 2000 during the Ministerial Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Marseilles, regarding the need for a closer synergy between the Framework Programme support and the considerable funds of the MEDA co-operation programme.

February 2001