Who is who dg rtd

Loading Map Search for:. Previous Next. Test Caption. We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits.

However you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent. Manage consent. Close Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. That sounds like a curious motivation, and it raises again the overarching issue of whether DG RTD and by extension the Commissioner responsible for research and innovation is still evading the only crucial issue they are facing which is to think about and to clarify what the European Union EU should concentrate on in its Research and Innovation policies.

The EU Framework Programmes are very important but as long as EU funding is only about 10 percent of overall public funding in the EU, the EU should focus on where it has the largest impact. That is because, while a larger emphasis on policy is very sensible, one may question whether the expertise and experience of DG RTD staff are up to the task of reforming national STI systems [1] and thus to proclaim this as a key task of EC civil servants.

Finally, one should question whether it is a proper role for the EC to act as a sort of consultancy. Let us have a closer look at these issues. Probably all Member States have gone this way a long time ago. But one should read behind the lines. Even while Horizon Europe, the new Framework Programme for , tries to be less prescriptive than e. Horizon , it is still the case, very much at odds with the way national governments act. What does it take to build up an effective and efficient national STI system?

This is obviously the most important issue. One culmination has been the concept of National Systems of Innovation. I have found it useful to focus on four pillars when discussing national STI policies. My argument is that the EC does not have much experience and expertise with any of these issues with the exception of the last one. The first pillar has to do with cabinet-level responsibility, coordination between ministers, having a special coordinating or executive minister, having a generic law on STI systems, creating an Innovation Council, and so on.

The second pillar is firstly about what sort of institutions there should be. All countries have universities, but make different choices when it comes to applied research. Germany and the Netherlands opted for a very large central organization for applied research the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft in Germany, TNO in the Netherlands apart from specialized laboratories in specific fields such as aerospace, whereas Denmark opted early in this century to integrate its applied research institutes with its universities, which moreover were to be merged into larger institutions, not without success.

But importantly, the model countries follow is much less bureaucratic and imposes far fewer conditions as to which or how many partners to involve than the EC does in its PPPs. That has to do with issues such as autonomy, personnel policy, strategy, funding, etc. The EC can hardly claim credit as a champion of autonomy or of any of these other issues. That is all logical given its remit, but it is not a qualification to now advise national governments on such things.

As to funding, one key issue is to find a balance between institutional funding mostly from governments and competitive funding through a national funding agency. Different governments strike a different balance, so what experience or knowledge could the EC advance?

Authorisation of the opening of negotiations for the conclusion of an Agreement with the Faroe Islands on the general principles for the participation of the Faroe Renewal of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the EC and the Government of India. Renewal of the Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the EC and Ukraine. Signature of the Agreement with the Government of Japan on cooperation in science and technology.