EUROSCIENCE NEWS 1WINTER 2003 EUROSCIENCE NEWS 1

EUROSCIENCE NEWSNumber Twenty Two Winter

Will Europe have its research area?

Until Commissioner Busquin announcedplans for the European Research Area, itwas arguable that European Science Policylacked substance. The Commission, ofcourse, had been spending, but this in itselfnever constituted a policy. Essentially, itswings were clipped early on by memberstates, unwilling to let the Commission fundanything that could be supported nationally.The ‘no duplication’ dogma preventedBrussels from funding anything outside veryspecific, predetermined areas, and limited itsfield of action to the narrowest of dirigisteenterprises. Not only was ‘responsive mode’funding excluded, but the nature of the sup-port was also tailored to avoid competitionwith National Agencies.

Small wonder, then, that the averageEuropean scientist felt excluded by the rules.The disappointment of ordinary researcherswith the whole structure of European fundinghas grown even amongst strong supportersof European integration.

With the advent of the ERA,Commissioner Busquin has potentially ush-ered in a completely new spirit. For years,EUROSCIENCE has advocated that there

should be some alternative to directed pro-grammes and to the cumbersome regulationsthey entail. Many ideas have been put for-ward. We have advocated, for example, open-ing up national funding within the Union toscientists from any member state, whichwould not require the creation of any newbureaucracy, but which, of course, does notresolve the problem of developing some kindof European strategy. A European ResearchCouncil has recently been suggested, and wasthe central theme of the Conference held inCopenhagen (October 2002) under theDanish Presidency. Many feel that theEuropean Science Foundation (ESF) has apart to play. The debate now extends to thenature of the institution, to its responsibilities,to its constitution and to its structure.

It seems amazing that national monopo-lies of science funding should still be with ustoday, despite all the lip service paid to theinternational nature of science and to itsimportance for our future. The Lisbon dec-laration by the European Council (March2002) was proudly aimed at turningEuropean society into a knowledge-basedeconomy. Funding for Research andDevelopment is to increase to at least 3% ofGDP (Gross Domestic Product) by 2010, butwho will be in charge of that? While busi-nessmen and bankers run multinationalcompanies, most scientists are still hemmedin by rigid national funding systems, accessto which is strictly controlled, sometimeseven on an institutional basis. Compared tothe situation in the USA or in Japan, this isalmost laughable. It is no exaggeration to saythat European science remains balkanised.

Copenhagen was a milestone in develop-ing a new spirit. Once things begin to move,it becomes very important not to misinter-pret the direction they are going in. The eyesof all European researchers are now on whatsolution will be chosen. The consensus isthat it should be ‘bottom up’ i.e. responsivemode funding of basic research, with nomore attempts to be dirigiste, please. It is alsocrucial that administrative structures andprocedures should be as light as possible.The concept of juste retour should be aban-doned in favour of excellence.

Of course, there is the usual question.How much money, and where from? Theanswers are actually simpler than appears.First, the funding for basic research shouldmatch existing framework funds distributed

through Brussels, viz. 5% of the total for science and technology in the Union.Second, with the Union about to enlarge,it is clear that current policies of supportingcertain sectors whose difficulties are inherit-ed from the past cannot extend further.Much better, therefore, to restructure theactivities of the Union so as to support thefuture economy of Europe. This, surely, isthe whole point of the Lisbon target.

After all this public discussion, somethingmust now be done. If the matter drags onindefinitely with no decision, and if the status quo continues, the consequences forthe morale of European researchers will beincalculable. Expectations have now beenraised, both in Lisbon and in Copenhagen.There is a clear agenda. If decisive actiondoes not follow now, this will be interpretedas yet another European opportunitymissed, yet another example of nationalgovernments signing up to grand statementsand then doing nothing.

This will be a clear signal to young would-be scientists, so please get it right.Jean-Patrick Connerade, President

Résumé Avec l’Espace européen de la recherche(EER), le commissaire Busquin a inauguréune nouvelle époque dans la politique de la science en Europe. Celle-ci souffre entreautres du dogme de la non-duplication entre Etats-membres et Commission, d’unfinancement dirigé vers des domainesprédéterminés et du manque de compétitionentre les agences nationales.

Au sein de l’EER, un Conseil européen de la recherche vient d’être proposé, qui a donné lieu à une conférence àCopenhague sous l’égide de la Présidencedanoise de l’Union. Le but de ce Conseil estd’établir, pour la recherche fondamentale,souplesse et compétition hors du cadrerigide national. Ainsi combattrait-on labalkanisation de cette recherche en Europe, tout en créant une structure degestion aussi légère que possible.

Les modalités de financement et cellesde l’inclusion des pays en voie d’accessiondoivent être étudiées. Mais une actiondécisive est attendue, et les regards sonttournés vers les gouvernements, eux qui se sont engagés au Conseil de Lisbonne à accroître considérablement l’effort derecherche en Europe avant 2010.

ContentsNews / page 2Bischenberg meetingEUROSCIENCE LemanWorkshop on Doctoral Student MobilityFeatures / page 4Towards a European Research CouncilEUROSCIENCE 2002 / page 8General AssemblyNew Governing BoardIn touch / page 12

2 EUROSCIENCE NEWS WINTER 2003

Science andTechnology BasedProfessions inEurope

Over 90 participants from 25 countriestook part in the EC-sponsoredEUROSCIENCE meeting on scienceprofessions and the future of youngscientists which was held in Bischenberg(Alsace, France) on November 6-9 2002. The aim of the Conference,introduced by R.Liberali on behalfof the EC, was to draft practicalrecommendations to implement theconcept of a European Research Area.Main themes and conclusions of themeeting are summarized below.

Changing research practices needadditional competencies related toindustrial, environmental and societalconcerns: the Conference stressed theimportance of team or projectmanagement, communication skills

and budget planning and the need togeneralize schemes already addressingthese objectives across Europe, using the methodological guidelines alreadydrafted by their initiators.

New jobs are anticipated from the increasing needs of research.Unfortunately, the exceedinglyheterogenous and rigid rules governingmost European labour markets may

fail to attract a better share of these jobs to Europe; they also deter the setting up of targeted task forces and mobility –thus interfering with the emergence of a ‘eurocompatible’ labour market in Science & Technology (S&T). TheConference therefore proposed a Charterfor Young European Scientists capable of

bypassing, temporarily at least, nationallabour regulations, and to entrust themanagement of corresponding contracts(whether supported from EC or privatesources) to a European Research ContractManaging Office.

While aware that temporary research contracts have adverse effects (as is well documented, e.g., for the United Kingdom), the Conferenceconcluded that they would help to ensure a wider scientific labour market in Europe. To facilitate this outcome,the work of ‘post-docs’ should berecognized as a professional activity of major importance for S&T; this would involve steps to enhance careerdevelopment through harmonisation of salaries (at the market level) andtransferability of social benefits. In other words, the risks for young scientistsof increased job flexibility should becompensated for by professionalrecognition and improved access to the social protection traditional inEuropean societies.

Participants showed an increasingawareness of their responsibilities towardssociety and stressed the importance oftraining young researchers – as well asestablished scientists – in re-appraising the role of science in society.Claude Kordonkordon@necker.fr

Résumé La conférence de Bischenberg sur les nouveaux métiers de la science et de la technologie en Europe (6-9Novembre 2002) a proposé quelquesrecommandations adressées à laCommission européenne: a) lescompétences des jeunes scientifiquesdoivent être étendues en fonction des enjeux industriels, environnementauxet sociétaux qui affectent les pratiques de recherche; b) la rigidité des marchés du travail européens pourrait êtrecontournée par l’adoption d’une Chartedes jeunes scientifiques européens et par la création d’un Bureau européen de gestion des contrats de recherche; c) en compensation d’une flexibilité accrue, le travail des postdocs devrait être reconnu comme une activitéprofessionnelle à part entière et lessalaires harmonisés au niveau du marché.

NEWS

President Jean-Patrick Connerade andformer President Claude Kordon in action

The work of ‘post-docs’ shouldbe recognized as a professionalactivity of majorimportance

Workshop onEuropean Doctoralstudent mobility

Alerted by its younger members whoexperience obstacles to short-termmobility during their PhD training,EUROSCIENCE started an initiative in2001 for the creation of an “Award forEuropean Doctoral Student Mobility”.This (symbolic) award was to be bestowedupon academic institutions that had madeoutstanding efforts to facilitate themobility of PhD students in Europe.A proposal for funding presented to theEuropean Commission was unfortunatelyrejected on practical grounds, althoughthe idea itself was judged valuable.

In order to rethink the initiative, a one-day workshop was held at the InternationalScience Forum in Heidelberg on October12, 2002, with financial support of theStifterverband. This workshop was not onlyattended by the initial promoters of theproject, as for example the Marie CurieFellowship Association, but also byrepresentatives from Eurodoc, PI-Net(Postgraduates International Network) andthe DAAD. Walter Denk from the EU officeof the German Ministry of Education andResearch gave an overview of the actionsthat are planned regarding mobility withinthe 6th Framework Programme.

In open discussions, the participantsconsidered all aspects of the award project,and it was agreed that instead of pursuingthe idea of a Mobility Award, aninternational conference should beorganised towards the end of 2003, whereuniversities and research institutions canexchange their experiences regarding PhDmobility. The aim of diffusing good practicein this field will be further supported by anongoing publicity campaign. TheGulbenkian Foundation in Lisbon hasalready flagged its great interest in hostingthe conference. If you would like to join us in its further planning, please contact usvia dmeyer@mariecurie.org orbenehoff@web.de.Benedikt Hoffmann

Colloquium ontransportationacross the Alps

The dramatic accident in the Mont Blanctunnel has crystallized the long-standingopposition to the traffic of heavy trucksfrom those living in the Alpine valleys.However, the technical background ofoptions to provide a sustainable future tothe growth of intra-European commerce is not generally known.

Experts from four different Europeancountries met to debate these complexquestions at a one-day colloquiumorganised by EUROSCIENCE-Leman andthe AFAS (Association Francaise pourl’Avancement des Sciences) on September26 2002. The meeting took place at theArchamps (Haute- Savoie) TechnologyPark, thanks to the hospitality of theFrench MP, Claude Birraux, President of the French Parliamentary Office forScience and Technology Assessment and a member of EUROSCIENCE.

Some of the themes that were discussedare outlined below:– transportation across the Alps –

a European problem, calling forEuropean solutions;

– the lack of co-ordination in rail standardsacross Europe (signals, voltages,regulations) tends to favour roadtransport;

– the share of road transport as compared torail is constantly decreasing: how can onereverse this trend? (taxes? regulations?);

– what is the future of combined transport(putting trucks or containers on trains)?;

– status of the French-Italian Lyon-Turinrail link.(new low-profile carriages arebeing tested to allow passage throughexisting tunnels;

– new technologies (robotized loading ofvehicles on trains, progress in signaltechnologies to locate trains and provideinformation to customers);

– risk assessment for transportation ofdangerous goods in tunnels.

For a complete transcript of the colloquium,see www.euroscience-leman.org .Robert Klapisch

EUROSCIENCE NEWS 3WINTER 2003

LAUNCH OF A NEW MAGAZINE ON SUSTAINABILITY!

The first issue of LaRevueDurable, a bi-monthly, interdisciplinary magazineappeared in November 2002. Its editor,Jaques Mirenowicz, who is also a goodfriend of EUROSCIENCE, aims to publisharticles focusing on research andinnovation that promote sustainabledevelopment, encouraging contributionsthat respond constructively to thechallenge of sustainability. Thoughpublished exclusively in French,contributions written in English, German or Spanish will be translated.For further information (and free copy offirst issue), contact j.mirenowicz@cerin.ch.

P. Salini (centre) moderates debate between U. Balmer (Swiss Ministry for the Environment, right) and J-C Boual (French Research Institute on Transport) at Archamps colloquium

MOBILITY: NOVELTIES in THE 6thFRAMEWORK PROGRAMME (FP6)

FP6 includes an activity, “Human resourcesand mobility”, now renamed “Marie CurieActions”, with a budget increased from 900million euros in FP5 to 1580 million in FP6for the period 2003-2006. The parts of thisactivity that are aimed at enhancing themobility of researchers and securing theirreturn and reintegration to their home base,contains a number of new features, some ofwhich have been repeatedly proposed byEUROSCIENCE, and less restrictions on thedefinition of beneficiaries.

For further information, please visit:http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/mariecurie-actions/action/action_en.html, andespecially the sections on Early StageTraining, Individual Fellowships, Return andReintegration Mechanisms. Calls forproposals will be issued by the end of 2002.

4 EUROSCIENCE NEWS WINTER 2003

Editors note: The Features articles belowfocus specifically on issues surroundingthe creation of a European ResearchCouncil. The important and ongoingcontributions of EUROSCIENCE to thisdebate are summarised below (firstarticle), followed by two articles thatelaborate on the background and futureperspectives for the issues involved.

The view ofEuroscience

Revived by the European ScienceFoundation (ESF), which set up a high-levelgroup to reflect on the project of a EuropeanResearch Council (ERC), the idea of creat-ing a new organism dedicated to fundinglong-term basic science in Europe hasrecently been debated at a conferenceorganised by the Danish Presidency of theEuropean Union Council in Copenhagenon 7-8 October.

The EUROSCIENCE Science PolicyWorking Group had already conducted asurvey (Spring 2002) within the scientificcommunity to evaluate the need for such an ERC and examine its possiblestructure and mode of action. The resultsof this survey (for details, see www.euro-science.org) are very much in line with asimilar study conducted by ESF and indi-cate that, for most grassroots scientists, afuture ERC represents a much-needed toolfor fostering curiosity-driven science thatcannot be currently funded by existing pro-grammes. In particular, the FrameworkProgramme (FP) is not aimed at promotingbasic research but at promoting economiccompetitiveness and providing social bene-fits within Europe, although the new networks of excellence may be targetedtowards funding basic science. In addition,FP is perceived as lacking flexibility and itscumbersome administrative system pre-vents most laboratories, especially smallones, from competing for funding. TheESF has set up the Eurocores programme,but this is still a very small-scale effort,although extremely valuable. Thus, anERC could be very useful in promoting alarger base for competition (namelyEuropean, rather than national) that,together with an increase in funding,would help raise the level and volume ofresearch, as well as promoting excellence.

What then should be the mission of suchan ERC? As mentioned previously, a largemajority of European scientists is asking for an organism dedicated to the promo-tion of basic research in a flexible way.More specifically, considering the probably slow building up of an ERC, workgroupmembers propose that the objective of thefuture ERC should consist in fundingnotably emerging fields of science (both“hard” and “soft” sciences). Such fields are underfunded in Europe, usuallybecause of the lack of reactivity ofresearch funding institutions.

With regards to funding mechanisms,a bottom-up approach is overwhelminglyadvocated. Projects should be retained onthe basis of their scientific value alone, aslong as they correspond to the fields ofresearch defined by the ERC board. Thus,funding should not be subject to the ‘fairreturn rule’, but only linked to the quality ofthe project proposals, their scientific meritbeing evaluated by a peer review system. Allbasic research, but most particularly inemerging fields of science, including naturaland social sciences, should be considered,with decisions taken by the ERC board.New fields arising at the border of existingdisciplines should be encouraged.Frédéric Sgardfrederic.sgard@sanofi-synthelabo.com

Résumé Depuis l’ouverture du débat sur le Conseileuropéen de la recherche, le groupe detravail d’Euroscience sur la politique de lascience a conduit une enquête auprès deschercheurs au moyen du site Web del’association. Les résultats de cetteenquête sont semblables à ceux del’enquête similaire menée par l’ESF:

pour la plupart des scientifiques de labase, un ERC représente un outil essentielde financement de la recherchefondamentale ‘curiosity-driven’ en Europe. Puis le groupe de travail a rédigéun ensemble de propositions qu’on trouvesur le site www.euroscience.org. Enrésumé: Un ERC fournirait une base pluslarge à la compétition (européenne plutôtque nationale), ce qui, avec uneaugmentation du financement, élèverait leniveau de la recherche, favoriseraitl’excellence et accroîtrait le volume de larecherche fondamentale. Cet organismedevrait fonctionner de façon flexible. Ildevrait soutenir les champs de rechercheémergents (en sciences dures, humaineset sociales) qui, en Europe, sont souventdélaissés. L’évaluation des projets devraitreposer sur leur seul mérite scientifique.

FEATURES

A Dissenting Voice

I have very strong reservations about anERC for two major reasons, one budgetaryand one because I consider that thestructural organisation of European sciencerenders many member states incapable ofprofiting from an ERC. First, a realist’s viewis that an effective ERC that could make adifference to the competitiveness ofEurope (requiring an institution with thepower, independence and financial muscleof a National Institute of Health), is simplyout of reach. Second, it is premature tocreate a pan-European structure over whatare essentially weak foundations, built insome member states upon under-fundedbut at the same time non-democratic andcorrupt institutions. Indeed, the veryscientists who might be expected to profitfrom such a Council, the potentially mostcreative, the 30-40 year-olds, in manymember states are few in number and ill-equipped to develop independently.

Perhaps the debate on an ERC would bebetter advanced now by defining clearly itsprecise ambition – a scalpel to promotechange by stealth, including for example,funding a select few by career developmentawards, or as a “colossus” to lift thefunding base towards the magic 3% of GDP,“wished” by the Council of Ministers.Barry HollandInstitut de Génétique et Microbiologie,Université de Paris-Sud, Orsay

For grassrootsscientists, a futureERC represents a much-needed tool for fosteringcuriosity-drivenscience

EUROSCIENCE NEWS 5WINTER 2003

Climbing the steps towards a EuropeanResearch Council

As early as at the beginning of the 1990s,researchers and science administratorsargued that Europe had inadequate,bureaucratically conceived funding struc-tures, and that the bodies that representedthe European academic community weretoo many and too weak. Therefore, many ofthem agreed that a reconfiguration of therole and function of Science & Technologyorganisations was needed at all levels (local,regional, national, and European).

Most importantly, this was felt to involve achange in the relationship between national(and in some countries, even regional) fund-ing structures for basic and strategic research,and an international orientation of theseknowledge arenas. In order to develop a ‘crit-ical mass’ of high-quality research in relevantareas, Europe appeared to be in need of atransnational funding structure that is capa-ble of creating both a co-operative climatefavourable to developing new ideas, with ade-quate funding modes and mechanisms, andfierce competition of the best and brightestresearchers from all over Europe. In 1993 itwas stated “as probably self-evident that sucha wide scope of activities can only be keptunder the auspices of an institution that has

been designed as flexibly and openly as pos-sible in order to allow for the participation ofrepresentatives from other areas of public life(especially industry). The status of such aEuropean Research Council (ERC) or arestructured European Science Foundationmust be that of a non-governmental interna-tional association.”1

Now, almost ten years later, we have toadmit that the time was probably not yet ripefor the idea of an ERC. But, as Victor Hugoonce wrote, there is “nothing more powerfulthan an idea whose time has come.“ In thebeginning of 2002 the time for this idea hadcome, and in the January 18 issue of Science,eminent scholars such as Enric Banda, HansWigzell, and Ernst-Ludwig Winnackerdeclared themselves in favour of splitting theEU Framework Programme and of creatingan ERC as an independent organization“more clearly under control by scientists”2 Inthe fall of this year, I had the opportunity tocall for a “Fresh start for European science”in Nature3, and since then the ERC hasstayed on the European agenda.

From its first day in office, the Danishpresidency of the EU Council strongly sup-ported the idea of an ERC and it was at aconference in Copenhagen organised by theDanish Research Council on October 7-8 2002 that more than 200 eminent scholars, administrators, and politicians metto discuss the need for an ERC. In his open-ing speech, Gottfried Schatz presented a“Scientist’s View” (see p6). He demanded toget rid of the far too bureaucratic fundingstructures in Europe – a view that still rever-berates in the ears of all participants. And in

spite of some controversial opinions onstructures and procedures, and intense discussions in three parallel sessions that followed, a large majority opted in favour ofestablishing an ERC.

Given this large majority and the recentpolitical debates on a European lack ofcompetitiveness, it is now time to climb thenext steps, to make the idea of an ERCbecome a reality. As soon as possible weshould establish a working group which willhopefully be able to develop a conceptmeeting to address the quite different, butlegitimate interests of science, society andpolitics. It will have to come up with realoptions for the creation of an ERC. AsGoethe put it at the beginning of “Faust”:“Words have been interchanged enough.Let me at last see action too.”Wilhelm Krull krull@volkswagen-stiftung.de

Résumé Le diagnostic sur les structures derecherche en Europe (inadéquates,bureaucratiques) et sur les organesreprésentant la communauté scientifique(trop nombreux, trop faibles) date du débutdes années 90. Il apparaissait qu’uneévolution devrait impliquer, pour larecherche fondamentale, une modificationde la relation entre structures nationales etorientation internationale. La constructiond’une masse critique européenne dansnombre de secteurs apparaissaitincontournable et le concept d’un Conseileuropéen de la recherche était évoqué.

Dix ans plus tard, l’idée a mûri, etcomme l’écrit Victor Hugo, ‘rien n’est pluspuissant qu’une idée dont le temps estvenu’. Les revues Science et Nature ontouvert leurs colonnes aux partisans d’untel Conseil. Puis lors de la conférence deCopenhague (Octobre 2002), le discoursd’ouverture prononcé par Gottfried Schatz(voir ES News 22, page 6) a plaidé pourune structure de financement de larecherche fondamentale qui évacue labureaucratie – une vue qui a été soutenuepar une majorité des participants. L’actionest maintenant nécessaire, la compétitivitéde la recherche européenne l’exige.

1 Wilhelm Krull, “European Science and Technology inTransition: Opportunities and Limitations for ChangingResearch Policy Structures at European Level”, October 1993.2 Hans Wigzell, “Framework Programmes Evolve”, Science (2002) Vol. 295, 4443 Wilhelm Krull, “Fresh start for European science”, Nature (2002) Vol. 419, 108

6 EUROSCIENCE NEWS

Do we need a EuropeanResearch Council? A scientist’s view1

Science politics, why and how?There are different ways to do science politics, and most of them do not work very well.

Here is the most common way: politicaland administrative bodies have a vision,draw up a detailed plan, and then get thescientists involved. The result tends to satisfy politicians and administrators muchmore than the scientists. Another way todo science politics is through mixed com-mittees with politicians, administrators and scientists. This approach avoids controver-sy, but the decisions are generally not basedon a clear vision, are riddled with compro-mises, and are rarely satisfactory. The third way leaves everything to the scien-tists. This way is rarely followed becausethere are few places in the world where scientists have that much power. And that’sgood because they should not have it: ifpublic money is involved, our political representatives cannot stand aside, butmust see to it that tax money is spent in the public interest.

Fortunately there is yet another way todo science politics: In a first step, the scien-tists decide what is needed. In a secondstep, they discuss their vision with repre-sentatives from politics and, later, withadministrators to reach a workable solu-tion. This approach has the advantage thatit starts with a scientifically sound andcoherent concept, and that compromiseonly enters later. Yet each party can stillmake sure that its interests are met.Political strategy and administrativeexpertise are important and we scientistsshould never forget that we are amateurs inthese fields and need help. We shouldalways remember that we do not have a God-given right over the taxpayer’smoney. When we participate in formulat-ing science policy, we should firmly uphold common sense and the interests ofscience, but should do so in a spirit ofmodesty and cooperation.

Why do we need the European Research Council?First, most of our European instrumentsfor funding research exclude the humani-ties and other areas of scholarship, whichdo not promise “practical” benefits. This isvery shortsighted, because most ofEurope’s urgent problems are social andpolitical problems, which the natural sciences or technology alone cannot solve.Mathematics and the natural sciences areat the heart of our Western culture,but their overwhelming preponderanceover the humanities and social sciencesdestabilizes our societies. Europe badlyneeds a funding body that supports allforms of science. I am using the word “science” in the Germanic connotation of“Wissenschaften”, which includes all formsof scholarship.

Second, a European Research Council(ERC) should become both a counterpointand a yardstick for many of our antiquatedacademic structures. It would be hopelesstrying to modernize all of these systems ina coordinated manner. But we could offerEuropean researchers the alternative ofgetting funds from an efficient Europeanagency whose decisions are largelyimmune to local influence. Having to compete with others is a very persuasiveincentive for national bodies to become

better. An ERC could bypass national barriers and allow researchers, particularlyyoung researchers, to be judged by peersfrom abroad.

The third reason why I support the ideaof an ERC stems from my concern thatEurope is neglecting long-term basicresearch. I do not share the view that“basic”, or “free”, research is fundamental-ly different from applied research. I believethere is only good research and badresearch. Basic Research has a long anduncertain time frame and a very broadfocus, whereas applied research usually hasa shorter time frame and a narrower focus.Both types of research are important, butthe short-term mentality of today makeslong-term basic research particularly vul-nerable. We should therefore entrust thefunding of long-term research mainly tothe public sector. The EuropeanFramework Programs have mostly focusedon short-term applied research. But if weconcentrate too much on applied research,we will soon have nothing to apply. Europebadly needs a body that funds long-termresearch in all areas of human inquiry.

How to go about itHow could we start? I would suggest askinga small group of internationally known,broad-minded and politically astute scientists from different disciplines to forgetabout all possible constraints and tell uswhat an ERC should look like. We shouldthen ask this group of scientists to discuss their vision face to face with toppoliticians. Administrative experts shouldbe consulted only after the blueprint of anERC has won the approval of both thepoliticians and the scientific community. Asthe next step, we should persuade an emi-nent scientist to be President of the neworganization and help it to a promisingstart. I would give the new President asmuch freedom as possible in selecting the Executive Committee and drawing upthe organizational structure. I assume thatthe new leadership would aim for a rea-sonable balance of disciplines, nationali-ties, and gender, but I would encouragethem to keep the usual bickering betweencountries and disciplines at arm’s length.Scientists respect excellence and rank anew organization largely by the reputation

1 Based on Professor Schatz’ opening speech given at theCopenhagen Conference in Oct 2002

EUROSCIENCE NEWS 7WINTER 2003

of those who are in charge. EMBO’simmediate success owed much to the prestige of its founders, and the same istrue of CERN.

One of the most important tasks ofthe new scientific leadership would be to ensure an effective and transparent sep-aration between political and scientificresponsibility. Failing to do that has mademany scientific organizations go sour. Ifthe ERC is to be run with public funds,politics must of course decide on the over-all goals, the funding level, and the wayperformance will be controlled. But thenpolitics must be wise enough to step asideand leave the actual operations to the scientific leadership. If the science of aproject demands the formation of net-works, networks should be funded; but theyshould never be required. If scientists wantto work on a topic that happens to be con-sidered “relevant” at the moment, so be it;but “relevance” should never be a must.And if scientists want to do an interdisci-plinary study, fine; but interdisciplinarityshould never be a condition.

Should the ERC set scientific priorities?In principle yes. But in practice no,because such decisions are always arbitraryand might prevent some of the most inno-vative research. The greater a scientific dis-covery, the more it surprises us. If the ERCadopts this principle, it will make mistakes.But it should not be afraid of mistakes,because mistakes are part of every innova-tion. If living cells never made mistakes incopying their genetic material, we wouldall still be bacteria. If our funding policiesare based on central planning and too cau-tious, we will avoid not only unpleasantsurprises, but also pleasant ones.

And finally, we should start small. AEuropean Research Council might beginby awarding postdoctoral fellowships justlike EMBO, but unlike EMBO the fellow-ships would be for all scientific disciplines.The next step might be predoctoral fellow-ships. These could be tied to the conditionthat the receiving institutions offer anacceptable graduate program. Predoctoralfellowships could thus be a powerful incentive for Europe’s universities to estab-lish graduate programs, which some ofthem have failed to do. If we want tostrengthen Europe’s research, it is a goodidea to start with the researchers. Once fel-lowship programs have proven successful,

the ERC could expand operation toinclude individual research grants andmore ambitious programs, such as big cen-tral facilities for European research.

When I said that an ERC should startsmall, I did not only mean its financialscale. I also meant that the Council couldevolve from structures that we alreadyhave. EMBO and the EMBC are suchstructures. Why not build on this base ofexisting strength? For example, we couldlet EMBO evolve into an ERC for all scientific disciplines. The new Councilwould not be created out of the void in sixdays, but evolve in a Darwinian processfrom what’s already there.

An ERC should not replace, but comple-ment the current European FrameworkPrograms. Even though long-term researchand applied research are not fundamentallydifferent, they have their own psychologyand their own mechanisms. Technologicalinnovation that exploits already existing scientific information often profits fromorganized coordination, and the review ofapplications must often accept that somekey proprietary information cannot bedivulged. In contrast, innovation in long-term basic research is usually driven by indi-viduals who follow their scientific intuitionand who may be hindered by an obligatoryplanned strategy.

A partnership between the ERC and EU Framework ProgramsAll of these general guidelines are not veryoriginal, yet we violate them all the time.The victims are scientific innovation – andthe taxpayer. Europe’s science programsstarted off on the wrong foot, but this is notthe time for criticism. It is the time to beoptimistic and to look ahead. During myyears in research I have learned that goodscience is not logical, planned and pedan-

tic, but intuitive, often chaotic, and full ofsurprises, just like good art. And during myyears in science politics I have learned thatscience policies are only effective if theyare simple. I have learned that science andart are both fragile flowers that wilt quick-ly when we manipulate them too much.We must prepare the ground for them, gofor the best talent, and then remove allbarriers that prevent these talents fromblossoming and producing fruit. We musthave the courage to be selective, but alsothe wisdom to step back. If we follow theseprinciples, Europe’s science could be sec-ond to none.Gottfried Schatz President, Swiss Science & Technology CouncilGottfried.Schatz@unibas.ch

Résumé A la question: ‘Avons-nous besoin d’unConseil européen de la recherche’, l’auteur répond du point de vue duscientifique, mais aussi en faisant appel à son expérience en politique de la science. Après avoir envisagé troisfaçons non satisfaisantes de conduire la politique de la science, il préconise une démarche ‘bottom-up’ qui maintienneet les intérêts de la science et ceux du contribuable. Il souhaite que le Conseil européen de la recherche soit bâti sur ce modèle.

Un tel Conseil devrait s’adresser à toutes les sciences (‘dures’, humaines et sociales). Il introduirait la compétitionparmi les organismes de recherchenationaux. Il financerait la recherche de base à long terme et serait donc uncomplément aux Programmes-Cadres de la Commission européenne.

Sa mise en place devrait veiller à uneséparation claire des responsabilitésscientifiques et politiques. On ne devraitpas craindre de faire des erreurs. Onpourrait commencer à petite échelle,d’abord avec un système de bourses pourles postdocs puis les doctorants. Oninviterait les universités à établir de vraisprogrammes doctoraux. Puis oninstaurerait des contrats de rechercheindividuels, puis des programmes plusambitieux. EMBO est une bonne structure-modèle, il pourrait évoluer en un Conseil européen de la recherche,en s’ouvrant à toutes les disciplines.

Europe badly needsa body that fundslong-term research in all areas ofhuman enquiry

EuroscienceGeneral Assembly2002

EUROSCIENCE held its 3rd biennialGeneral Assembly in Strasbourg onNovember 10th 2002. This followed awelcoming reception held on the previousevening, which was hosted by Alain Levy,the Deputy Mayor of Strasbourg, in thesplendid and historic Hotel de Ville (nextto where the Marseillaise was first sung).Earlier in the week, EUROSCIENCE

had also organised a highly successfulthree-day conference on New Science and Technology Based Professions inEurope in Bischenberg.

MEETING OF OUTGOING BOARDThe last meeting of the outgoing GoverningBoard took place on the evening precedingthe General Assembly at the MaisonKammerzell, a restaurant in a picturesqueRenaissance building near the Cathedral.Two main agenda items were discussed atlength, finances and membership fees,leading to specific proposals to be put to theGeneral Assembly (see below).

PRESIDENT’S REPORTPresident Jean-Patrick Conneradewelcomed participants to the GeneralAssembly that was held in Strasbourg,which was also the venue for theEUROSCIENCE Constituent Assembly in1997. He thanked the University forhosting this event and the city ofStrasbourg for supporting it. In describingthe activity of EUROSCIENCE, he stressedhow well our association has evolved,and the importance of the many andvaried initiatives taken by its individualmembers (see below), reflecting the role of EUROSCIENCE as a ‘bottom-up’organisation. He also noted that the moveof the Secretariat from Paris to Strasbourgtwo years ago has enabled the associationto strengthen its base by establishing anindependent Office, employing its ownstaff. On behalf of all the members ofEUROSCIENCE, the President thankedLaurence Nottellet and Raymond Seltz for the tremendous work they are doing.

Establishing the new office and coping with two Conferences in the same year wasa major achievement.

In his report, he highlighted theactivities of EUROSCIENCE over the last two years:– The Budapest Conference (June

14-16 2002), organised jointly withEARMA. This major event, in whichEUROSCIENCE’S contribution focusedon a workshop on “Science forReduction of Risk and SustainableDevelopment of Society”, was verysuccessfully managed by Alik Ismail-Zadeh, a member of our Board (seereport in EUROSCIENCE News 21);

– Another major event was the recentconference on “New Science andTechnology based Professions inEurope”, held in Bischenberg(November 6-9 2002) – a great successby all accounts. It was supported by theEuropean Commission, with ClaudeKordon, former President ofEUROSCIENCE, chairing its organisingcommittee (see report on p2);

– Following up on an earlier meeting in 2001,a lively workshop on “European doctoralstudent mobility” was held in Heidelbergon October 13, 2002, supported by theStifterverband für die DeutscheWissenschaft. (see report on p3);

The President announced that theRammal Award Ceremony, sponsored byEUROSCIENCE, will take place onDecember 3 2002 in Paris. This year’srecipient is Professor Ahmed Teebi, aspecialist in paediatrics and medical geneticsat the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.

He then went on to describe howEUROSCIENCE is increasingly consultedon big European issues, as a relevantsource of information and as a ‘bottom-up’ organisation, offering our partners theopportunity of hearing the “voice ofscientists”. This was clearly recognized,for example, by the invitation extended toseveral members of EUROSCIENCE toparticipate in a recent conference inCopenhagen to debate the issue of aEuropean Research Council (see featurearticles in this issue, p4-7).

Finally, he stressed the need to focus ourefforts in the near future in preparing themajor EUROSCIENCE event planned for

Stockholm in August 2004 – ESOF2004 – the first pan-Europeanscientific conference.

The President then called uponmembers to help increase individualmembership of EUROSCIENCE, proposingthat we all invite six friends to join,providing each with appropriatedocumentation about our association.

In conclusion, the President Conneradethanked members of the outgoing Boardfor their contribution to the growth of EUROSCIENCE and welcomed the new Board.

The President’s report was unanimouslyadopted (with one abstention).

NEW GOVERNING BOARD ELECTEDThe Secretary General reported on theresults of the last election, which tookplace by postal ballot (for the first time) in June 2002. Five new members wereelected to the Board – see full list of newBoard members on p12. A total of34 candidates had stood for election (ofwhich 13, for re-election). He pointed out that while the statutes allowed for 24 members of the Board, it had beendecided by the outgoing Board to reducethis to 17, so as to allow for co-optation ofmembers taking up special responsibilitiesfor EUROSCIENCE, and that Anna Schytt(from Swedish Television) resigned from theBoard after the election to take over newresponsibilities in connection withESOF2004. The first 18 candidates toppingthe voting list were therefore declaredelected and this was unanimously approvedby the General Assembly.Raymond Seltz

TOWARDS A EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREATwo presentations took place during themorning session of the General Assemblythat reflect EUROSCIENCE’S long-standingconcern with the development of aEuropean Research Area and the activecontributions made by some of ourmembers to bring this project to fruition.

Benchmarking Science and TechnologyProductivity in Europe. Wilhelm Krull,EUROSCIENCE Honorary Vice-President,was chairman of the expert group thatproduced a document (in June 2002), atthe request of the European researchministers, on the efficiency of the S&Tsystem in Europe. This was the first

8 EUROSCIENCE NEWS WINTER 2003

ES2002

comparative exercise of this type everconducted at the level of the EuropeanUnion, and a learning exercise both forthe EU and for the member states.

The goal was to help the Commissiondraw together its science and technologypolicies based on a clearer knowledge of theperformance of the EU vis à vis the USAand Japan and amongst EU member states.For this purpose, the existing indicators thatwere used were critically assessed in order to develop a methodology that could beapplied in subsequent exercises.

W. Krull illustrated the major findingsof the survey, interspersed with maliciouscartoons (See for example page 5). Let usquote here the summary of the report:– “The EU represents the largest source

of scientific publications, slightly aheadof the USA, and a great deal ahead of Japan, in absolute numbers.

– In publications per inhabitant, the EU is ahead of Japan but lags behind theUSA. The gap with the USA has almosthalved between 1995 and 1999.

– In publications per money spent inuniversity research the EU leads theUSA and Japan, and its lead doubledbetween 1995 and 1999.

– In citations per scientific publication,a measure of the quality ofpublications, the USA leads the EU,which is ahead of Japan.

– In the USA patents per money spent in business R&D, Europe lags behindthe USA and Japan.

– In “triad patents” (patents held in theUSA, EU, Japan) per money spent inbusiness R&D, Germany, Sweden andthe Netherlands outperform Japan andthe USA, whilst the UK and Francefollow Japan but outperform the USA.Triad patents are a more appropriateindicator for comparing the USA,Japan, and the EU, than patent datafrom any single national or regionalpatent office.”

As to performance within the EU,the following emerges, with a very highscore for Nordic countries:– “Two thirds of EU publications

come from UK, France and Germany.– In publications per inhabitant the

Nordic countries lead, followed by the Netherlands and the UK.

– Publications per money spent inuniversity R&D show a wide divergencearound the EU average, thoughvariation is asymmetric, with the higherscores (UK, Finland and Denmark) over40% above the mean, and low scores(Germany and Portugal) only 10%below the mean.

– In citations per paper six countries were more than 20% above the worldaverage in 1998, five are on or around it and only four below.

– The number of patents per businessR&D expenditure shows a substantialvariation between EU countries, withSweden, the Netherlands and Germanyas top scorers. The sectoral compositionon industry strongly influences suchrankings.

In the discussion that followed, aparticipant asked whether it was money, orthe system, which accounts for Europe’s lagin R&D (as compared to the USA andJapan). One reason, it was pointed out, wasthat the European national science systems– with the notable recent exception ofFinland’s – often lack continuity in theirpolicy. Another member of the audienceremarked that benchmarking, whenconducted within industry, starts from thedemand side, while the EU benchmarkingexercise started from the supply side; hence

the inescapable crucial question of “whoreally needs the research that we areoffering?” In reply, we were reminded thatthe goal of this S&T benchmarkingexercise was to help decision-makers, ratherthan to provide a product for the market.Finally, it was noted that the situation ofthe candidate countries should also bescreened through a similar analysis.

The Round Table on the EuropeanResearch Council featured Jerzy Langer,Vice-President of EUROSCIENCE, who isalso a member of the high-level group set upby the ESF to present a feasibility study foran ERC, Enric Banda, Secretary General ofESF and Frederic Sgard, who had led thework of EUROSCIENCE on the ERC.J. Langer paid tribute to “the father of theERC concept”, Enric Banda, and gave anoverview of ongoing work. E. Banda in turnstressed that in his view Europe shows a lackof ambition, that Europe should be builtupon new discoveries, education andinnovation, and that while the concept ofan ERC is certainly difficult, ways have nowbeen opened to pursue its realisation.

For more on the ERC, see p4-7!.Francoise Praderie, Honorary Vice-Presidentfrancoise.praderie@obspm.fr

EUROSCIENCE NEWS 9WINTER 2003

Alik Ismael-Zadeh and Mikhail Libensonemerge smiling from the Round Table.

10 EUROSCIENCE NEWS WINTER 2003

Yuri Bandazhevsky

At the meeting of the 3rd GeneralAssembly of EUROSCIENCE held inStrasbourg, a unanimous motion waspassed, empowering President Jean-Patrick Connerade to write to Mr JoeBorg, President of the Council of Europe,on behalf of EUROSCIENCE, requestingthat the Republic of Belarus should NOT be admitted to membership ofthe Council of Europe until Professor Yuri Bandazhevsky, a distinguishedscientist, is released from prison andreinstated in his civil rights. The letter was sent on November 14.

Meanwhile, there is deep concern about the severe deterioration in thephysical and psychological health ofProf. Bandazhevsky. His wife Galina, apaediatrician, wrote on September 6, 2002,to the UN Human Rights Committee andto the UN Working Group on ArbitraryDetention, asking for help:

“When I saw my husband for the first time in 3 months (I had no rights to visit him duringall this time), I did not recognize him. The manbefore me was another man, a man crushed,indifferent to his surroundings […] And here,after everything he endured to defend his truth,he tells me that he is giving up. He speaks like a frightened man, pushed to the very edge, […] a man who is being forced to choose between his children and science.”

Galina Bandazhevskaya was allowed tosee her husband on November 4th; hepresented her with a request to undergoan independent health examination by aninternational commission of physicians.

EUROSCIENCE will call upon theBelarusian government, the EuropeanUnion, international governmental andnon-governmental organizations, to exertpressure using all possible channels toobtain the immediate and unconditionalrelease of Professor Bandazhevsky and to provide him with all appropriatemedical care. The “Union of FrenchPsychiatrists” has already sent a letter of support along these lines to thePresident of Amnesty International.

Members of EUROSCIENCE are invited to write letters in Russian or

English to the relevant authorities (see www.euroscience.org for addressesand advice). Please send copies of yourappeals to diplomatic representatives ofBelarus accredited to your country.Lydie Koch-Miramondlkoch@discovery.saclay.cea.fr

Euroscience OpenForum 2004

Work to prepare this major pan-EuropeanForum (see www.esof2004.org), the first of its kind, is rapidly intensifying.

The governance structure for ESOF2004has been established and several keyprojects are now under way. The SteeringCommittee for ESOF2004 has heldmeetings every 3 weeks since August 2002.The other committees (Finance, LocalOrganising and Programme Committees)are busy organising their respectiveresponsibilities. An Advisory Board forESOF2004 Advisory Board has beenconstituted. It is chaired by Hans Wigzell(Karolinska Institutet), with Wilhelm Krull(Volkswagen Stiftung) as Vice-Chair andincludes, amongst others, Philip Campbell(Editor of Nature), Peter Gruss (Max-Planck Society), Helga Nowotny (ETHZentrum) and Ortwin Renn (Centre ofTechnology Assessment). A first meetingwill take place early in 2003.

Numerous meetings have recently beenheld at the European and national levels.What can be said is that the dialogue withNature continues to be fruitful and thatapplications for support have now beensubmitted to five Swedish ResearchCouncils. Moreover, the BritishAssociation wants to collaborate withEUROSCIENCE, intends to participate inESOF2004 and has written a letter ofsupport. There have also been quite a fewmeetings with the European Commissionregarding its possible involvement withESOF2004, as well as several ongoingdialogues with European ResearchCentres and learned societies.

What we now need is your input andhelp. Funding and other forms of supportare essential. We hear a lot from peopleinterested in the Open Forum. What weneed now is your help in engaging

national structures such as researchcouncils, universities and industries in your country. Please contact us atcarl.j.sundberg@esof2004.org orgabriella.norlin@esof2004.org Carl J SundbergChairman of ESOF2004 Steering Committee

Working Groups

The activities of the most dynamicworking groups are documented on thewebsite. This is the case, for example, forthe Science Policy group, reporting onelection issues in France and Germany and the debate regarding the ERC. Inaddition, the Young Scientists group hascontributed very actively to the discussionsthat took place at the Bischenbergconference (see report, p2), as well as on issues concerning the mobility ofdoctoral students (see report, p3). LydieKoch-Miramond (Ethics in Science group)reports recent developments on humanrights issues, specifically with regard to the fate of Prof. Bandazhevsky (on thispage). Finally, the group on East-Westcollaboration has been very active as

NEW DATE FOR ST PETERSBURG MEETING

After further consultations betweenmembers of the St PetersburgAssociation of Scientists and Scholars(SPASS) and members of theEUROSCIENCE Board, it was decided that the 300th anniversary meeting on“Non-governmental organizations asmediators of scientific and technologicaldevelopment”, organized by the StPetersburg branch of the EUROSCIENCEWorking Group on Technology Transfer(ESWGTT), will now take place in October 1-4 2003, instead of April 9-11 as previously announced inEUROSCIENCE News 22.

For further information, seewww.stpetersburg.technology-transfer.net.

Nelly Didenko ESWGTT, St. Petersburg branchdidenko@spbrc.nw.ru

EUROSCIENCE NEWS 11WINTER 2003

the core organisation for the Budapestworkshop, while the Technology Transfer group deserves much credit for its dynamic collaborations withEUROSCIENCE members from EasternEurope.

Other Matters

Finances. Our Treasurer, Ekkehard Winter, presented the audited accounts for2001 and the provisional budget estimates for2003- 2004). During the year 2001, therewas a 33% increase in income (to 124 000Euros), but also in general expenditure (by35%) that was mostly linked to the salary of an Assistant (to the General Secretary)recruited in 2001. The year ended with a surplus of 3600 Euros. The GeneralAssembly unanimously approved theaudited accounts, which will be published in full in the next issue ofEUROSCIENCE News.

He then went on to present theprovisional budget for 2002-2003 (asrequired by our statutes), noting that wewill need regular increases in membershipfees to help cover the cost of overheads for important projects in the pipeline (e.g. ESOF2004). The provisional budgetfor 2002-2003 was unanimously adoptedby the General Assembly.

Membership fees. The outgoing Boarddecided, after a vigorous debate, to submit the following proposals to the vote at the General Assembly:– To reduce the number of categories

in “Active individual members”,“Associate members” and “No fee”;

– To increase the individual membershipfee from 35 to 40 Euro, with a reducedfee of 20 Euro for students, membersfrom EU candidate countries (new!) and members under a joint membershipagreement (new!) and

– To waive fees for honorary membersand members from countries witheconomic difficulties.

These proposals were unanimouslyadopted by the General Assembly.

The next Governing Board will discuss a proposal by President Conneradethat fees be collected in local currency

in countries with economic difficulties and well-organised local sections. A major part of the money could be used for local activities.

Local sections. EUROSCIENCE, which drawsits membership from 40 Europeancountries, must achieve some coherenceover such a wide geographical distribution.The Board proposes to adopt a federalstructure, anchoring our representation to local sections wherever that provespossible. The Leman section, which can be regarded as a model, has been verysuccessful in the past in organising eventsclosely related to local concerns (e.g.,see report on Leman section, p3), thusenhancing the visibility of EUROSCIENCE

at regional level.Progress reports from the local

sections in Ukraine, Georgia, Romania,Bulgaria and from SPASS, in Russia,showed that there seems to be an excellentbasis for these countries to adopt afederative contract with the Office ofEUROSCIENCE; a person in charge ofcoordinating each of these sections should be now be designated to maintaincontact with the Office.Raymond Seltz

Editor’s footnoteIn trying to present the flavour of thisyear’s “hot topic”, the creation of aEuropean Research Council, in ourFEATURES section, I have receivedgenerous help and advice from JerzyLanger and Francoise Praderie – thank you both!

Clearly, the debate on how to bring about an ERC is now gaining speed bothwithin EUROSCIENCE and elsewhere; forexample, this is the theme of aforthcoming meeting in Paris (February 18-19 2003), under the auspices ofUNESCO, hosted by the three majorEuropean bodies for the Life Sciences.

To keep up the momentum, I wouldencourage our readers to send in theircomments on any of the issues raised inthese pages. In particular, what are yourviews on the concept, elaborated byGottfried Schatz and others, of engagingwith a much broader view of science thanis traditional, i.e., one encompassing “all forms of scholarship”?

BEST WISHES TO ALL FOR 2003!

Our secretary General, Raymond Seltz,flanked by the ever photogenic Alik Ismael-Zadeh (on his left) and Simeon Anguelov(enjoying a private joke?)

Euroscience on the Web:www.euroscience.org

12 EUROSCIENCE NEWS WINTER 2003

IN TOUCHNew Board Meets

The new EUROSCIENCE Board metduring the lunch-break of the GeneralAssembly. President Connerade made the following proposals, which wereunanimously accepted:

To co-opt onto the Board, JohnLagnado, the new editor ofEUROSCIENCE News, and MikhailLibenson, Chairman of SPASS;

To appoint as Vice-Presidents, CarlSundberg, the key person involved inESOF2004, and Frederic Sgard (now at the OECD), who spearheads thescience policy activities of EUROSCIENCE;

and as Honorary Vice-Presidents,John Finney and Jerzy Langer,in recognition of their deep commitment to EUROSCIENCE andvaluable contributions to its successfuldevelopment.Raymond Seltz, Secretary General

NEW EUROSCIENCE GOVERNING BOARD

Simeon ANGUELOV, Bulgaria/France, Chemist,

UNESCO, sanguelov@mageos.com

Jean-Pierre BOURGUIGNON,

France, Mathematician, jpb@ihes.fr

Jean-Patrick CONNERADE,

United Kingdom, Physicist,

ATOMIC_CLUSTERS@compuserve.com, President*

Eugen GHEORGHIU, Romania, Biophysicist,

egheorghiu@biodyn.ro

Vahe GURZADYAN, Armenia, Theoretical Physics,

gurzadya@lx2.yerphi.am

Christine HELLER del RIEGO, Spain,

Electrical Engineering, Professor, cheller@upco.es

Benedikt HOFFMANN, Germany, Biologist,

Strategy consultant, benehoff@web.de

Janusz KOMENDER, Poland, Medical science,

Professor, wydz6@pan.pl

Claude KORDON, France,

Neuroendocrinologist, kordon@necker.fr

John LAGNADO, United Kingdom, Biochemist,

Editor of ES NEWS, j.lagnado@rhul.ac.uk

Mikhail LIBENSON, Russia, Physicist,

libenson@mlhome.beam.ifmo.ru

Tony MAYER, United Kingdom/France,

Science Administrator, amayer@esf.org

Andrea NIEHAUS, Germany, Art History,

Museum Director,

a.niehaus@deutsches-museum-bonn.de

Francesco de NOTARISTEFANI, Italy, Physicist,

denotari@fis.uniroma3.it

Didier RABOUD, Switzerland, Astronomer,

Didier.Raboud@obs.unige.ch

Raymond SELTZ, France, Nuclear physicist,

r.seltz@euroscience.ws,

Secretary General *

Frédéric SGARD, France, Molecular geneticist,

OECD, frederic.sgard@sanofi-synthelabo.com,

Vice-President*

Carl John SUNDBERG, Sweden, Doctor,

Medical Research, Carl.J.Sundberg@fyfa.ki.se,

Vice-President*

Peter TINDEMANS, Netherlands,

Theoretical physicist, peter@tindemans.demon.nl

Ekkehard WINTER, Germany, Molecular biologist,

e.winter@stifterverband.de,

Treasurer *

New members of the Board are highlighted in bold.

The Governing Board also declared John FINNEY

and Jerzy LANGER, former Vice-Presidents, as new

Honorary Vice-Presidents by the outgoing Board.

*Members of the EUROSCIENCE Bureau

Copy for the next issue should reach the editor, preferably by email to j.lagnado@rhul.ac.uk, by Friday 21st February 2003

EUROSCIENCE NEWS IS PUBLISHED FOUR TIMES A YEAR. IT IS SENT AT NO COST TO EUROSCIENCE MEMBERS. NON-MEMBERS ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION 30EUROS. PUBLISHED BY EUROSCIENCE. DESIGN BY NB: STUDIO TEL: +44 [0]20 7580 9195 FAX: +44 [0]20 7580 9196© EUROSCIENCE. MATERIAL MAY BE CITED PROVIDED FULL REFERENCE IS GIVEN. OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE THOSE OF THE CONTRIBUTORS, AND ARE NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF EUROSCIENCE OR THE EDITOR. EDITOR – JOHN LAGNADO, SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, ROYAL HOLLOWAY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON, EGHAM TW20 0EX, UK.TEL/FAX: +44 (0)20 8560 7580; EMAIL: J.LAGNADO@RHUL.AC.UKCONTACTING EUROSCIENCE: RAYMOND SELTZ, 8 RUE DES ECRIVAINS, F-67000 STRASBOURG, FRANCE. TEL: +33 3 88 24 11 50; FAX : +33 3 88 24 75 56; EMAIL OFFICE@EUROSCIENCE.WS.

Members of the new Board (…and others)pose for Alik Ismael-Zadeh at the GeneralAssembly 2002 From left to right, back row:VS Kozhukharov, I Wünning, C Kordon, J Lagnado, J Langer, S Anguelov, T Mayer, E Winter, B Hoffman, C Sundberg, EGheorghiu; front row: R Seltz, L Nottellet, A Niehaus, C Heller del Riego, D Raboud, F Sgard J-P, Connerade, P Tindemans.