K. Gottstein
Max Planck Institute for Physics Munich, Germany
In: XVI Amaldi Conference on Problems of Global Security. ATTI DEI CONVEGNI LINCEI 230, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, BARDI EDITORE, Roma 2007, ISBN 978-88-218-0966-8, p. 27-32
Only a few days ago I was told that I am supposed to speak about the state of science advising in Europe and that I have 30 minutes altogether for this task and for the presentation of the paper by Dr. Nele Matz and myself on the problems of science advising in general. So I have to be very brief. The latter paper has been distributed separately.
1Let me just quote from it one sentence about the Amaldi Conferences: “The main purpose of the Amaldi Conferences is to keep the scientific community up to date with the developments in the production and control of weapons of mass destruction so that independent experts become available as counterparts to government experts in parliamentary hearings, public discussions, and in the media.”
Who else in the landscape of European scientific institutions and organisations is involved or engaged in the field of advising governments in security matters? I am not speaking of governmental science offices and committees which were created to solve particular technical problems facing individual government departments or agencies. Such committees and offices exist in the ministries of many European countries for areas requiring scientific knowledge, such as energy supply, transportation and communication, environmental protection etc, and in some countries also for questions of defence and advanced military technologies. In the present context I am rather interested in non-governmental organisations at the European level which already supply, or might be able to supply in the future, scientific advice to the governing body of the European Union (EU), i.e. the European Commission, when decisions of vital importance to the security of Europe will have to be made. So far, we all know that most of these decisions are essentially still the responsibility of the national governments within the European Union, and in several of the European countries there are non- governmental groups of scientists lobbying with their governments for what they consider to be reasonable, peaceful and sustainable policies. E.g., in Germany there ist the Federation of
1 A summary of it was presented which is not reproduced here because the paper itself is included in the present proceedings.
organizes workshops and symposia on current problems of defence policy and is often consulted by diplomats of the German Foreign Ministry (particularly from the Office of the Commissioner of the Federal Government for Questions of Disarmament and Arms Control), and by Members of Parliament.
But more and more decisions are made in Brussels by the European Commission in almost all areas of government, including foreign policy and international cooperation, and I am not so sure that there is adequate advice-giving by independent scientists or scientific institutions at the European level. It is true that there is a European Commissioner for Science and Research, and under him there is a Director General in charge of a Joint Research Centre (JRC). The JRC operates seven Institutes in Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, and Spain, among them the Institute for Transuranium Elements in Karlsruhe, and the Institute for Energy in Ispra, the latter being responsible, inter alia, for Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Management and for safety, security and radiological protection. The mission of the JRC, according to its own website, “is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of EU policies. As a service of the European Commission, the JRC functions as a reference centre of science and technology for the Union. Close to the policy-making process, it serves the common interest of the Member States, while being independent of special interests, whether private or national. … In effect, the JRC is a research-based policy support organisation working for the EU policy-maker.”
However, there is, as far as I can see, no provision for a high-level European Science Advisory Council outside the EU structure although there exist a number of European scientific organisations which, in principle, would be in a position to set up such a council.
Let us have a look at some of these organisations.
22 As Dr. Nick Green (Royal Society) pointed out during the discussion period after the presentation of this paper, there is the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) with office at the Royal Society. EASAC, again according to its own website, “provides a means for the national Academies of Europe to work together to inject high quality science into EU policy-making. Our task is Building science into policy at EU level by providing independent, expert, credible advice about the scientific aspects of public policy issues to those who make or influence policy for the European Union. Our ambition is that EASAC will be recognised by EU policy-makers as the place to go for reliable, timely advice that reflects the best that the European scientific community can deliver – thorough in its investigations, disinterested in the recommendations and transparent in its processes. – EASAC is designed to combine ease and speed of operation, with the unrivalled prestige and authority of the national Academies of science and with the opportunities that come from ready access to the
There is, of course, ICSU, the International Council for Science, formerly called the International Council of Scientific Unions. It is truly international, not just European, but among its 27 Scientific Union Members and 73 National Scientific Members there are many Europeans. Moreover, the issues ICSU investigates, like assessing the risks and benefits of applying new genetic discoveries to food and agriculture, are as significant for Europe as for any other region. Furthermore, ICSU established recently a new Committee on Scientific Planning and Review. ICSU is to evolve “to assuming a more proactive and strategic role in addressing key international interdisciplinary issues of importance for science and society.”
3So far, however, there does not seem to be a mechanism for linking the results of the ICSU problem assessments to the decision-making process in Brussels.
Another candidate for advice-giving, also at the European level, might be the Interacademy Panel on international issues (IAP). It is a global network of the world’s science academies, in close cooperation with ICSU. “Its primary goal is to help member academies work together to advise citizens and public officials on the scientific aspects of critical global issues.”
4Since its inception in 1993 IAP has issued statements on population growth, urban development, sustainability, human reproductive cloning, science education, health of mothers and children, scientific capacity building, science and the media, and on access to scientific information.
As the next candidate I mention the European Science Foundation (ESF). It “promotes high quality science at a European level. It acts as a catalyst for the development of science by bringing together leading scientists and funding agencies to debate, plan and implement pan- European initiatives. … The ESF addresses a number of science policy issues at the European level, principally through workshops and specialist symposia, often in collaboration with other agencies.”
5networks of members and colleagues that constitute Academies.” EASAC has set up a Biotechnology Strategy Group, an Environment Strategy Group, and has launched a study on crop plant genomics.
So far, however, EASAC has not taken up security studies.
3 From the ICSU website www.icsu.org.
4From IAP’s self-description on the IAP website.
5 From the website of the European Science Foundation.
on Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). It is supported by 16 countries which are mostly European. The exceptions are China, Egypt, Japan and the United States. The member countries are represented by their national academies or by special committees for the support of IIASA. Current IIASA projects are in the fields of Environment and Natural Resources, Population and Society, Energy and Technology, and Sustainable Rural Development.
Then there is the European Federation of National Academies of Sciences and Humanities (ALLEA). It is a “Federation of 52 Academies of Sciences and Humanities in 39 European countries , whose Member Academies are self-governing communities of scientists and scholars. ALLEA seeks to promote the exchange of information and experience between Academies, to offer European science and society advice from its member Academies, and strives for excellence in science and scholarship, high ethical standards and independence from political, commercial and ideological interests.”
6There are two European Academies: The European Academy of Sciences (EAS) and the Academia Europaea. The European Academy of Sciences (Académie Européenne des Sciences) is registered and operates under rules and regulations of the Kingdom of Belgium.
It “carries an important mission to promote excellence in science and technology and their essential roles in fostering social and economic development and progress. … The Academy promotes interaction between basic and applied research and eases transfer of knowledge to end-users. The Academy contributes towards the development of international policies in science and technology and facilitates the creation of a critical mass needed for solving the most important scientific problems.”
7The Academia Europaea is a functioning European Academy of Humanities, Letters and Sciences, composed of individual members. Membership is by invitation. Current membership stands at around 2000. The objectives cover the humanities, social and natural sciences, so as to ensure interdisciplinary discourse and activities. Initial modalities were to include multidisciplinary meetings, an interdisciplinary journal, a newsletter, providing independent advice, improving mobility of scholars within Europe and improving public understanding of science.
86 From the ALLEA website.
7 From the EAS website.
8 From the website of the Academia Europaea.
In our investigation of international, and in particular European, scientific organisations eligible for advice-giving to government at the European level, we should perhaps also have a look at the science programme of NATO. There is a NATO Programme for Security Through Science which offers support for international collaboration between scientists of the countries of the EURO-Atlantic Partnership Council or the Mediterranean Dialogue. Since the early 1990s the NATO Science Programme has served a wider scientific community, as scientists from NATO’s Partner countries have become eligible for support. The aim of the Security Through Science programme is to contribute to security, stability and solidarity among nations by applying cutting-edge science to problem-solving. Research Topics supported are in areas of Defence Against Terrorism, or Countering Other Threats to Security.
9We have seen: Lots of activities are going on in “science advising” but much of it is uncoordinated. There is probably some duplication of efforts and a certain amount of redundancies. Very little emphasis on arms control and disarmament is recognizable.
The question arises whether and how the European science institutions, or the European sections of international science institutions could organize, in cooperation with the European national governments and with the European Commission, a working interdisciplinary scientific advisory system on a permanent basis which would allow the elaboration of options for action when decisions on problems of European security have to be made, with an analysis of risks and benefits for each option. It would certainly be a difficult task but not an impossible one. There have been encouraging examples of similar efforts in the past which were successful. For instance, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in its Final Act, adopted in Helsinki in 1975, established a Scientific Forum on problems equally important to the East and the West. After a lengthy and careful preparation the Forum took place in Hamburg in 1980 at the invitation of the government of the Federal Republic of Germany. All the 35 CSCE countries participated. The meeting lasted two weeks, set up four Working Groups on alternative energy sources, food production, medicine (cardiovascular, tumour and virus diseases, taking into consideration the influence of the changing environment on human health), and social, socio-economic and cultural phenomena, especially the problems of human environment and urban development. The Scientific Forum
9 From the website of the NATO Security Through Science Programme.
scientists, after dutiful ideological exchanges, were at last united in their desire for an improvement in international cooperation in science. The procedure for discussing papers and agreeing on reports was a bit cumbersome under the diplomatic rules of the Cold War but the scientists on both sides managed to overcome these difficulties and finally produced interesting reports.
The Scientific Forum of the CSCE is certainly not an example of how a European scientific advisory mechanism should operate. It just shows that with enough motivation and support a joint effort of the European science community to tackle problems of overriding interest is indeed possible. Who will take the initiative for the creation of a truly effective European science advisory system in which the best European experts take part in an interdisciplinary manner with the goal to investigate in depth the scientific aspects of the problems facing the European decision-makers? Will the Amaldi Conferences be able to give a push in the right direction?
Science advising in Europe
