Dear Rectors and Vice Rectors, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for inviting me to join this final session of your event. I hope that you have had a productive and inspiring time here in Brussels so far!
I’m very pleased to see so many of you from around the Nordic countries here today. I happen to be back from a recent, fruitful visit to Oslo and, a few months ago, we held a Scientific Council meeting against the backdrop of the midsummer light in Helsinki.
The Nordic countries have a longstanding tradition of scientific excellence and certainly belong to those that invest most into science per capita in the world.
So, as I’m here today to talk about the idea of excellence in research and where it might be headed, I know I’m amongst friends.
If you look at certain recent trends then it is possible to conclude that the concept of excellence in research is being called into question.
We see politicians and policymakers who insist that research should be targeted or directed at specific challenges or goals in order to have any impact.
We see decreasing budgets for basic research and increasing support for innovation in some countries, or by some funders.
We see international collaboration being subject to increasing scrutiny and restrictions.
We see attacks on academic freedom and the questioning of “experts” by illiberal politicians and governments around the world, including here in Europe.
Some would even argue that the recently published Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment is partly an attempt to move away from the idea of excellence in research.
Taking these things together, an observer might start to think that the ideas of pursuing knowledge for its own sake and of excellence in research are somehow discredited or outdated.
I want to be very clear today. The idea of excellence in research is not going away any time soon and I will do my best to make this true!
Let us take the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. On 8 July, the final version of the agreement was presented at a Stakeholder Assembly of over 350 organisations from over 40 countries.
Doesn’t this level of interest show that something is seriously wrong with our current practices? Do we need to change criteria related to scientific excellence?
I do not believe this to be the case.
If you look at the Agreement it is rather well balanced. The vision it sets out is, “that the assessment of research, researchers and research organisations recognises the diverse outputs, practices and activities that maximise the quality and impact of research”. And to do this “requires basing assessment primarily on qualitative judgement, for which peer review is central, supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators.”
So the reformers are not attempting to lower the quality of research. Rather the intention seems to be the opposite.
What they are questioning is taking short cuts for judging excellence, f or example, by considering Journal Impact Factors or H-Indices rather than a researcher’s contribution to knowledge or their grant proposal. It is ironic that sometimes those who espouse “excellence” choose to take these shortcuts, and do not take the time and effort required to ensure a high quality evaluation.
As you know, the European Research Council is based on a simple idea. We support the best researchers to work in Europe on their best ideas. The sole criterion for selection is scientific excellence.
This approach is critical to the success of the ERC and we have no intention of changing it. It has been our clear strategy ever since the day the ERC was launched 15 years ago, after decades of efforts from the scientific community. It was indeed thanks to Scandinavian efforts that the creation of an ERC got firmly on the political agenda, first through independent Swedish research personalities, notably Prof. Dan Brändström; and then during the Danish EU Presidency in 2002.
But at the heart of this approach is an unrelenting focus on the quality of our evaluations. The governing body of the ERC, the Scientific Council, constantly hears feedback before and after every grant competition, which we take into account when we make adjustments to our Work Programme and guidance for applicants and members of our evaluation panels.
The ERC's peer review evaluation process has been carefully designed to identify scientific excellence irrespective of the gender, age, nationality or institution of the Principal Investigator and other potential biases. It also takes career breaks, as well as unconventional research career paths, into account.
The evaluation process ensures that Principal Investigators have the professional competence and qualifications required to carry out their proposed project. The evaluations are monitored to guarantee transparency, fairness and impartiality in the treatment of proposals.
We are thus clearly committed to “basing assessment primarily on qualitative judgement, for which peer review is central”.
Indeed, the ERC Scientific Council has been closely following the debate on reforming research assessment. The Council set up a task force on Research Assessment, which I chair, at its December plenary meeting last year.
The task force is currently looking closely at the various proposals and recommendations for reform in the light of the ERC’s own current practices. Our aim is to reach some conclusions later this year, and we will make our thinking and outcomes public. This is a very important topic with wide implications and we want to take our time and get this right.
But what are not in question are the basic principles of the ERC. The sole criterion of scientific excellence is here to stay at the ERC!
Regarding other potential threats to the idea of research excellence, unfortunately I believe that some of these are real. But I also believe that history shows that these threats can be countered.
I am sure we all agree that the freedom to engage in scientific inquiry, to pursue and apply knowledge, and to communicate openly is essential.
It is indeed concerning that even now, in certain countries, even in Europe, this hard-won right is contested. This reminds us that we need to always be vigilant and not take these freedoms for granted.
I am from a country where academic freedom is enshrined in the constitution.
But it is also important to stress that with freedom comes responsibility. We have a duty to conduct and apply science ethically and with integrity.
Regarding the balance between supporting basic and applied research, I think that the arguments for supporting basic research need to be repeated over and over again. It is much easier for politicians to say we are spending money on finding a cure for cancer than it is to say we are looking into fundamental processes of cell division. But without the latter, the former is not possible. And I do think that people can understand that. So maybe it is a question of reminding them.
It is also important to show that this approach can be successful. Take the example of Ugur Sahin. It is thanks to his research and that of his colleagues that we were able to have a vaccine against Covid-19 in record time (Pfizer/BioNtech). The same applies for Adrian Hill, who is behind the Astra Zeneca vaccine. Both of them are ERC-funded scientists.
Since the ERC launched its first call for proposals in 2007, we have funded over ten thousand of the best scientists in Europe to pursue original and creative research leading to advances at the frontiers of knowledge.
And they have certainly done this. Since 2007, ERC-funded researchers went on to win nine Nobel Prizes, six Fields Medals and eleven Wolf Prizes. In February, two ERC grantees were awarded the latest Wolf Prize in Physics for pioneering contributions to ultrafast laser science and attosecond Physics. And we will be watching with excitement the upcoming Nobel Prize announcements!
Beyond this, every year we ask a group of independent experts to look at the results of the projects which the ERC has funded in the past. The latest such exercise found that 81% of projects funded by the ERC resulted in a scientific breakthrough or major advance. Over 200,000 scientific publications have been produced by our grantees recording the results of their work. And these publications of ERC grantees are cited by other scientists seven times more than average. That shows their significance within their fields.
But it is not only in the field of basic research that we see such positive outcomes. We find that the work of ERC grantees is making strong contributions to political priorities. The ERC has just published its own analysis of all projects it funded under Horizon 2020. A series of fact sheets document the diversity of the funded research with projects in many emerging areas of science. 34% of the analysed ERC projects are likely to contribute to health policies, including in cancer, brain and human mind research. One in ten projects addressed problems linked to the digital transition, half of which were in the area of artificial intelligence. And, 14% were found to be relevant to climate policies and green solutions.
Similarly, a recent study found that out of the 2,500 EU-funded publications referenced in the four reports of the assessment cycle of the sixth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 854 of these publications came from ERC projects. Not bad for projects chosen in a completely bottom-up way!
At current budget levels, the ERC is not able to fund all the proposals rated as excellent by its extremely competitive peer review process. The current success rate in our calls (less than 15%) is also lower than many equivalent national funding agencies. And that is despite the rather strict resubmission restrictions which we impose on unsuccessful applicants.
So if you ask me what I would hope to achieve, then it would be to convince the EU’s policymakers to increase their investment in curiosity-driven frontier research in the next framework programme.
The overall envelope for research investment is also key of course. Ideally, we want enough investment in both fundamental and applied research and not to have to trade them off against each other.
Funding for fundamental research and for innovation can be complementary. Relations between the European Innovation Council Advisory Board and the ERC Scientific Council are very cordial and we have a good collaboration, including a joint working group that meets regularly. We released a joint statement last year setting out this relationship. We both understand that research and innovation are two sides of the same coin.
It is very interesting to note that 25 out of 42 recipients of the European Innovation Council’s new “Transition” funding originated from research funded by the ERC. The new grants will help take breakthrough technologies closer to deployment.
I hope I have shown that it is possible to make a strong case for supporting fundamental research chosen on the sole criterion of scientific excellence. And I will make this case for as long as I am the President of the ERC! But there is no magic formula which will unlock higher budgets for research funders.
And unfortunately, two decades after the EU set itself the ambitious goal to become, by 2010, "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world", EU R&D investment is still far from its 3% target and below its major competitors.
Turning to another issue, I am personally a strong supporter of international collaboration. Scientific progress relies on connected knowledge communities and these communities are not national. These communities are the way knowledge spreads around the world and becomes widely used. From the point of view of any one region or country the majority of new and existing knowledge is developed outside that region or country. A national science base is not therefore primarily about producing “national science”. It is about gaining access to all the knowledge that has ever been created or will ever be created anywhere in the world.
Indeed, it would be catastrophic for any modern country if suddenly one day it had to rely only on the technologies that had been created within its geographical borders, even for the most advanced countries.
This is one of the reasons why the ERC’s Scientific Council have been strong supporters of the association of Switzerland and UK to Horizon Europe. Both countries are key parts of the European Research Area - historically, geographically and scientifically. We are still fervently hoping that a way can be found for them to associate. We are stronger together.
From a scientific perspective the preference for scientific collaboration is very clear. Science is about understanding the world as it is. That is why there is no such thing as European science or Russian science or Chinese science, there is only science. International collaboration enriches science and helps us learn more, and I very much support it.
However, we cannot wish away politics. If and when a country or organisation or individual commits sufficiently egregious acts, then it becomes impossible to justify working with them any longer. That is why the ERC Scientific Council felt it necessary to condemn the Russian attack on Ukraine, and express our strongest support for Ukraine and its scientific community and installed a programme to support them
Let us continue to stand up for excellence in science together and do what we can to help the world and our communities!