Η πιο κάτω ομιλία έγινε στη Συνάτηση για την Έρευνα που οργανώθηκε από το Γραφείο Προγραμματισμού κατά τη διάρκεια της Κυπριακής Προεδρίας. Δημοσιοποιείται εδώ με σκοπό να συμβάλει στη συζήτηση που πρέπει να γίνει στην Κύπρο για την έρευνα αλλά και για την ανάπτυξη γενικά. Doing Good Science in Europe: Strengths, weaknesses, and prospects I will speak both in my current capacity as an active researcher and my previous capacity as the Minister of Education and Culture of Cyprus. I will briefly comment on research policies and practices with the will to facilitate strengthening good policies and practices and removing the weakness. In principle, the communication of the Commission for a “A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth” is commendable for the targets its sets up and it practices it proposes. Ideally, everything needed to be done for the development of research and innovation in the EU is there. Moreover, the Cyprus’ position paper on the EU funding programs after 2013 is a very nice complement to the communication. It draws attention to the development of research in small member counties, which are many, and in the social sciences and humanities. Having said my good words about the commission and the presidency, let me describe the present situation and point to what, in my view, is missing. The present situation in research is not better than in other domains of life in the EU. In short, it falls short of where it might be and it is very fragmented and uneven across member states. Let me specify: Good science is published in top scientific journals (impact factor higher than at least one, i.e., journals where publication ensures some visibility of research and use by other researchers). In this regard, the EU as a whole falls much behind the USA. For each set of 100 papers published in these journals by researchers in the USA, the total of the EU is 72.9. Overall, then, we may have progressed considerably in the recent decades but we are still behind the USA in doing good science. And we are very fragmented and uneven. Of the total of good papers produced in the EU, about two thirds are produced in only three of the 27 member countries: Germany (20.4), UK (16.9), and France (11.7). Some other EU countries are there but they are weak: Italy with 6.1, Spain with 5.5, Holland with 4, Sweden with 2.5 and Belgium, Denmark, Austria, and Finland ranging between 1 and 2. I draw your attention to the saddening fact that 16 of the 27 member countries do not appear in the list. I note that China rates third (19.8), Japan fourth (18.4), Canada seventh (8.3) and South Korea eighth (6.7). Many say, wrongly, that good basic science is for the rich nations and for boosting the careers of academics. This is far from the truth. In fact, the countries excelling in good science obtain most of the patents issued and they have strong economies. The USA is again first, with Germany, the UK, and France to rest in the top ten. Obviously, expenditure in research is proportional, with all of the top countries to spend more than the countries which are low. Everyone speaks about the crisis of the international economy. It may not be a coincidence that most of the countries that face serious economic problems today, including Cyprus and Greece and other Mediterranean countries, are either not included in the lists above or they are very low. In other words, the countries facing economic problems are very slow in adapting to the so called knowledge economy that is the only option for Europe. In other words, it seems that sending a science troika to these countries it might be a better strategy than sending them a financial troika to fix the problems of the economy. What are the main reasons for this low performance of many EU member countries. I would place education of researchers first. I invoke here my experience as an academic, a former member of the Governing Council of the EUA, which gave us experience in the evaluation of Universities all over Europe, and my ongoing experience as a journal editor and reviewer for top journals in my field (cognitive-developmental psychology). Researchers are trained during their doctoral studies. Many often than not, if a researcher does not take the proper training during his or her doctoral studies he or she may never catch up. I would claim that doctoral programs in many European universities fall short of the standards for internationally contributing researchers at the level of excellence. The research on which doctoral studies are based is not of the level that would lead to top journals any way and when it is at this level the whole doctoral education package falls short in other respects. For example, the skills for communicating research in the harsh world of peer evaluation of top journals are much below what is needed. Let me share with you my experience as the associate editor of a top European (British) journal in psychology: We do not receive many papers from countries other than those in the list above, and when we receive such papers we very rarely accept them. Either the research reported or the presentation level is very low. Therefore, in addition to the policies for research mentioned above we need special measures for the training of researchers at the first place. It is of course beyond the aims of this speech to delve into these measures. In fact, these measures may fell under the subsidiarity principle and therefore they lie within the competence of the member states so that it might be improper to make suggestions about them. However, I can make a general political statement here. The Bologna process did have many positive implications during a period of fast expansion of university education. In sake of this aim, however, it has had some negative implications as well: It compromised standards of excellence in the education of many prospective researchers. We need therefore to re-examine our policies in this regard. In any case, we would have to focus on them. Many of the measures proposed in the communication of the Commission for “A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth” are in the right direction. To meet their aims, however, they need to be associated with the training of researchers. If you would ask me to mention good examples to imitate, I would refer to the Netherlands and Switzerland. They produce as many good papers as EU countries that are 3 to 5 times larger than them. Excelling in innovation is even more complicated. For this to be possible, a country needs top education and research and top industry that needs innovation and provides the means and incentives for young prospective innovators. A model example here, on the one hand, is Germany. Everything needed is present and it is well used. Top industries, such as the automobile industry, make use of researchers in the research institutions to preserve the relative advantage of the country. On the other hand, what does Cyprus, for example have that would make our researchers competitive to the German researchers? Not much, I would say. Therefore, we need measures that would make researchers from low industry countries useful for high industry countries. And, on the other hand, the top countries would offer opportunities to prospective innovators in the weaker countries. This is in the best interests of every one and it is the responsibility of the European leadership to ensure it.
Posted on: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 14:53:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015