Interview with EU Commissioner,
Janez Potocnik

Interview with a second EU Commissioner, Janez Potocnik, the Science and Research Commissioner. In the interview, the Commissioner reflects on the current and future EU research policy, especially in the energy field and underlines its challenges and priorities.

Written interview for FORATOM 25 January 2pm

Q1: In view of the agreement on the EU budget that was reached at the December summit, how great a share of that budget do you think should be allocated to research and do you expect that amount to be forthcoming?

A1: The deal reached in December 2005 saw a lower share of the budget going to spending aimed at developing growth and jobs than had been proposed by the Commission. The Commission will be making a proposal in early February as to how the funds that have been allocated to such spending, including research, should be divided between the different programmes. I can’t prejudge the outcome of such discussions, but it is clear that research is a vital component of competitiveness, a fact which needs to be reflected in its allocation. Also, the Council said that by 2013, research spending should be 75% higher than in 2006, which would lead to an annual budget that year of about €9 billion.

Q2: It is generally agreed that too few young people today are interested in studying the sciences and don’t see a career in science or research as a particularly attractive option. Similarly, it is also difficult to recruit science teachers. What actions do you envisage taking to reverse this trend, to promote increase scientific knowledge and to secure the next generation of talented scientists and researchers? Are you considering any actions to spread best practices of science teaching in the EU?

A2: it’s true that one of the problems we are facing in European science is the image problem of science as a career. We produce a lot of science and engineering graduates – about as many as the US – but they don’t pursue careers in sciences. The European Commission has various initiatives aiming to tackle this – Researchers in Europe 2005 for example, which organised various events to bring the public and scientists together, to forge better mutual understanding. Or the Code of Conduct and Charter for Recruitment of researchers, which sets out the basic conditions and responsibilities for researchers across Europe. But of course, there is a large element of this that is down to the Member States, within their education systems. After all, children are naturally inquisitive and innovative and we aren’t building on that natural talent in terms of education.

Q3: The areas that most interest the general public and/or MEPs are not necessarily the most promising ones from a technical point of view. The former are defined in terms of what is desirable and usually involve technical challenges that are extremely difficult to overcome. The latter are more often defined in terms of what is achievable, which is why they are more promising, even if less ambitious. How do you intend to ensure that those research projects that have the best chances of producing results actually get the resources they need?

A3: I’m not sure that I agree with your analysis. It seems to me that what you are talking about here is an issue of communication rather than evaluation or choice of projects. We need to make sure that the people carrying out the projects are able to explain what the impact of their project could be. The ones who can do that are the ones who get the public and decision-makers behind their projects.

In any case, with the creation of the European Research Council, we will be squarely putting decisions about what projects are funded in the hands of scientists, with the only criterion being excellence.

Q4: Do you agree that we have entered an era where scientific targets are more and more bound to the wider political context? Can the need to fulfil wider political goals be reconciled with the need for effective, results-oriented science?

A4: I would agree that we are in an era where on the one hand, the public demands to see the value in public spending and on the other, where the role of science and research in supporting and developing our European way of life is much more recognised than it has been in the past. Far from seeing this as a problem, I think this is a stimulus for results-oriented science.

Q5: The term “critical mass” is often used by DG RTD when emphasising the importance of allocating appropriate resources. How do you assess the level of funding/resources that needs to be allocated to a particular research project in order to ensure a successful outcome?

A5: We need to be careful about the terms we use here. When we’re talking about research, we can’t guarantee a successful outcome. Sometimes an experiment that does not work tells us as much as one that does work. So we need to be clear what we mean by success. What we’re trying to do with the Framework Programme is provided an additional European dimension and this will often mean having lots of players in a project so that it reflects the range of experiences and talents within Europe in a particular field. So I think that’s what we mean by critical mass. As for the level of funding for each project, that is generally proposed by the project members. We don’t have a formula to work it out in every individual case.

Q6: In successive FPs, there have been notable research success stories. Has DG RTD tried to identify the underlying factors or ingredients that might explain their success in order to increase the chances of success in the future?

A6: We have a system for assessing proposals using outside expert evaluators, who look for certain ingredients in a project that will increase the chances of the project coming up with good results. These include elements such as vision, foresight, clear objectives, involvement of end-users (such as industry), continuity, good leadership, well-chosen partnerships, high-quality personnel and equipment. These are all factors that help achieve results, but as I said before, there are no guarantees in this world. We also have a publication with some of our notable success stories, which I hope can be used as a source of inspiration.

Q7: In its proposal for FP7, the European Commission outlined its plan to create a European Research Council (ERC). How much do you think nuclear research will feature in the ERC’s work?

A7: It’s impossible to say at this stage. The whole idea of the ERC is that it funds the best science in Europe, science that is forging new ideas and pushing the frontiers of our knowledge. The guiding principles are excellence, and the autonomy of the scientific community, represented by the Scientific Council, in establishing what is excellent and therefore eligible for funding. The Scientific Council will be making these decisions, not the Commission.

Q8: Since you took office, what have been your best and worst “surprises” or experiences?

A8: It has been a privilege and a pleasure for me to get to know so many of the extraordinary people working in the scientific community in Europe and discover some of the amazing things that are being done, that have the potential to deliver real improvements to our lives. I suppose the only really negative thing is that with so many different places to visit and people to meet, I don’t get to spend as much time with my family and friends as I would like!

Q9: Not given

Q10: How significant a role should research play in a successful energy policy?

A10: Research is fundamental to a successful and sustainable energy policy, with a mix of energy sources. Firstly, in generating knowledge that can bring about technological advances to help achieve the objectives of such policy, such as increasing the efficiency of existing power generation or developing new sources of energy. Secondly, by providing scientific support to policy-making, and making sure that those making the decisions about the future direction of our energy policy are doing so on the basis of sound data and information from the wide range of disciplines involved.

Q11: In controversial areas like nuclear safety and radioactive waste management, there is a tendency to encourage the acquiring of ever more in-depth knowledge, which tends to slow down or delay the decision-making process. In order to avoid the trap of using science as an excuse for not deciding, would you consider establishing guidelines to define when acquired knowledge is sufficient to warrant action being taken?

A11: First things first: I am responsible for research policy, where the primary purpose is the development of knowledge. So of course that is what I am encouraging. But I don’t think that decisions are put off for scientific reasons. It is important that policy in certain areas is based on good science, and DG Joint Research Centre plays a very important role in providing that technical knowledge. But decisions are made on the basis of that knowledge every day, in a wide range of areas. The evaluation of when the knowledge is sufficient to allow a decision to be made varies very much from one issue to another, so I’m not sure guidelines would really help very much.

Q12: How do you see the relationship between DG RTD and DG JRC, especially in the nuclear research field?

A12: The objectives of the two Directorate-Generals under my responsibility are different, if complementary. JRC performs direct research activities under the Euratom treaty. The institutes concerned are partners in some of the projects managed by DG RTD under the Euratom research programme. So the relationship functions very well.