I guess one must first define what is meant by the comment “not that big anymore from a European perspective”. Unless something has changed in the last couple of years it would appear at first glance to be very big.

One must first agree to the concept that research and development of future technologies is important. If one does agree to this, then the EU is falling further behind the US and Japan and by 2010 could be overtaken by China.

It does seem there is actual disagreement among the EU leaders if this area is important. I make this comment as it relates to the EU budget. The budget reflects the priorities of the EU.

It would seem France, supported by Germany, believes the EU’s future lies in agriculture in the form of the CAP, as 40% of the budget is devoted to this program. PM Blair had wanted to allocate more to education and R&D but this was not acceptable to the majority of EU member states. So in this sense the statement this is not big anymore from a European perspective is true.

If you think of R&D as three parts – investment (money), personal (S&E researchers) and opportunity, the EU does not measure up to being a competitive worldclass player.

This comment was contained in an overview given European Research Commissioner in 2003.

Brain drain on the rise

The ‘brain drain’ of people born in Europe is increasing. Seventy one percent of EU-15-born US doctorate recipients who graduated between 1991 and 2000 had no specific plans to return to the EU-15, and more and more are choosing to stay in the US. The most important reasons keeping European scientists and engineers abroad relate to the quality of work. Better prospects and projects and easier access to leading technologies were most often cited as reasons behind plans to work abroad.

More can be found here http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/press/2003/pr2511en.html

And here http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/era/pdf/indicators/snap6.pdf

And even more here http://www.welt.de/data/2005/07/20/748011.html

And here ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/indicators/docs/kf2005_report.doc

http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-142731-16&type=News

Since that report the situation has not improved significantly and in some areas has gotten worse.

This causes me to wonder just what was meant if anything when in March 2000, the EU Heads of States and Governments agreed to make the EU "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-driven economy by 2010".

Was this another statement made by the EU that had no meaning as Thomas has implied about the EU’s warning to Iran?

Solipson

I am sure you are not wrong. You are probably very correct.

Your remarks frame the discussion more into a question of, “are the current metrics being used the best way to measure this”. I really cannot answer that. If you feel they are wrong, then you must equally feel there is a better measurement. I would enjoy reading what measurement you would use.

You also refer to your own experience of firms doing research and not filing patents or rendering publications. I could understand the publication part but not applying for a patent seems to me to be a missed opportunity to not only protect intellectual property but to recapture some of the R&D investment. I find the latter a bit bizarre.

Equally it would seem only EU firms are the ones who take this approach, and this same type of bizarre behavior is not happening in other firms in other nations. So the metrics for other nations are correct and those for the EU are incorrect.

If this is the case as you presented it, then it would appear the failure to protect intellectual property is either not considered to be important within the EU or it is a failure of management and not the R&D community. The truth is the EU is much stronger in this area than is being reported or even its leadership believes.

Your example about the 10 Mexicans and the 1 German is an excellent example of resource allocation. Of course, I have never had an engineer show up to fix anything before. It is usually some tradesman, such as a plumber if I have a problem with either my water or sewage system. I don’t really think I could afford an engineer. Frankly there are times I am shocked at the cost of a tradesman. As for language skills, I am not a plumber so I am not sure I would understand what he was talking about anyway. My personality is such that I do not view this as a social event but one of pay for services renedered.

Putting your example in the context of the EU, was this the concerns the French had when they spoke of the Polish plumber? Then staying in a hotel in Paris, instead of 10 Polish plumbers showing up, one French engineer would appear. This might explain the room rates.

I have never been one to question the reports prepared by the EU nor for that matter much of what the German M$M reports about the EU or conditions in Germany. It would seem you take issue with that. You are in a much better position to make an assessment of what is actually true. I guess this would not be the first time a EU report is wrong. I can share your position on the M$M as I too take issue with many things they report and how they are framed.

Finally if I am to understand the drift of your comment this really is in fact not a big deal because the metrics are flawed. This is very good news I would think for the EU. And yes, most great advances do not occur in the US. They happen some place else.

The EU will in fact become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-driven economy by 2010. As more than 50% of the time when this goal was established has elapsed we should be seeing the effects on economic performance very soon, I would think.

The statement made in 2000 was not meaningless it was just not needed or warranted. Thank you for clearing all of this up.

Solipson,

You totally misread my “tone”. There was no defense at all about the US or at least there was on intent to defend the US. Looking at the comment I made, I believe the only reference to the US were quotes by Europeans and this more in reply that you felt the “brain drain” was no longer such a big deal. I very much attempted to limit my comments to that part of the discussion and to focus on the question asked.

I think I conceded the point to you when I stated most great advances do not take place in the US.

As for the various organs of the EU, I have no way to assess their effectiveness or their validity. It would seem in this area what was true in 2000 and the various heads of state believed to be true is no longer true in 2005. I would tend to agree with you on the point they want more money. This seems to be a universal trait of all governments, the fact they want more of your money.

My question concerns the metrics being used was in response to your comment that you felt they were wrong or at least disagreed with them. From your initial comment you gave me the impression it was because many EU firms just did not file patents or brother to publish. Equally, I am well aware of the internal conflict between “trade secrets” and patents. The advantages and disadvantages of those two options.

Your response led me to believe this was more of a EU phenomena – patents and publications. Now it would seem this is quite common within the international SME community and not just limited to European nations. Of course, I would be highly upset as a shareholder if a firm invested in R&D, developed something worthwhile and then failed to protect it. I would be voting for new management.

But is it really a question of the metrics being used or it is a failure to properly work within the framework of the metrics and in fact capture what is being done? Failing to do the latter, does this in fact invalidate the metric?

Your statement of what the Americans have done in perfecting the use of the metrics is interesting. I did not realize that. I tend to think more in terms individual corporations marketing products and the success or failure of a product. I do realize there is a lot of basic research, which will never result in commercialization. Even in the area of Nobel Prize winners, they are normally related back to some organization be it academic or corporate and only in announcing whom the winners are is nationality ever mentioned. In my limited experience of meeting these people they are introduced as so and so from so and so organization. Many times the fact they are a Nobel Prize winner might not even come up; even less so nationality. You must have had a much different set of experiences.

I also found some of the things patents have been issued for to be amusing as you thought they were. Concerning the Protective underwear with malodorous flatus filter, not knowing anymore about it than your reference I cannot really make an informed comment on it. I could see how it might in fact have some application to the disposal diaper industry. My experience having been around a baby who has loaded his diaper and it has not been changed causes me to think if this actually worked there would be a market for it.

I would tend to agree with you about the need for structural reforms but it would appear this is only agreeable to the majority in the abstract. Actually, many feel it is an attack on the very core of the social welfare state as it has developed in many European countries. Given the problems of addressing the CAP where 40% of the EU budget goes to less than 5% of the people, one has to question will structural reforms actually ever occur. I am of the belief given a choice most people would prefer the status quo.

The discussion about exports is equally interesting but can also be a bit misleading too. I would present to you the best measure of exports for Europe is a EU total discounting all intra EU transfers. This seem logical if for no other reason than the EU is a single market.

So from what you have said the EU is the most competitive and knowledge driven economy in the world. If I am to understand your rationale the metric here is high value exports. This might in fact be the best metric of all.

I do have a request. Would mind posting a good reference for the raw data you feel would bring all of this more into focus.

Thank you in advance.