© Dr Michael Galsworthy
Building a bridge between East and West
Membership of the EU expanded significantly in 2004 with the addition of ten Eastern European and former Communist states. It was the largest single expansion of the organisation in its history and was followed three years later with the accession of Romania and Hungary.
Despite having equal representation in the EU’s institutions, the region continues to lack equality in research and innovation, harming Europe’s international scientific competitiveness. With China and India on the rise and the USA continuing to be the top location for many internationally aspiring scientists, the question of how Europe can prevent a growing brain drain is now being asked.
With personal knowledge and experience, Dr Michael Galsworthy of University College London outlined to Horizon2020projects.com the key barriers facing scientists in Eastern Europe and their subsequent lower participation in the EU’s research and innovation framework programmes.
The EU’s newer member states (EU-12) often have smaller research institutes with a weaker financial structure and administrative capability compared to their Western European partners. Eastern European scientists also have fewer international connections and therefore are much slower at engaging in new opportunities. However, this is less true regarding the younger academics, who are much more willing to travel and network.
Eastern Europe is certainly not impeded in terms of its potential researcher base and has a proud history with many famous scientists, e.g. Marie Curie, Nichola Tesla and Copernicus. Yet I feel that most of the official documentation and analyses coming out of the European Commission are very patronising about the region, calling the countries ‘laggard’ and stating it will not compromise on excellence. Though there are weaknesses – an old guard of old academics is still in control with often less modern ways of working; the new, young scientists should be supported and not patronised.
Horizon 2020 is a golden opportunity for Eastern Europe that has great scientific potential. If you invest in the EU-12 properly, this will bring a huge boost to the EU as a whole. It would also give Europe a proper brain circulation, as opposed to brain drain to Western Europe and the rest of the world.
What steps can be taken to combat these problems?
The key issue is the salaries scientists receive in Eastern Europe. At present, the European Commission pays according to the local rate, which really affects scientists in the region. When a multinational project application is submitted with partners from across the EU, it becomes clear how large the remuneration margin is between East and West, as all the would-be participants have to put their salaries on the table as part of calculating the budget. The differences in salary are much more dramatic than any differences in living costs, making EU pay to Western researchers far more supportive than those to Eastern researchers, even within the same project. Given the improved networking, many more Eastern European researchers now can, and do, move to work in Western Europe; this needs to be addressed.
Such a salary scheme of matching the status quo is actually protectionist to Western European institutes rather than being meritocratic and it can starve out new competition. This often encourages Eastern European researchers to travel to the United States to receive proper recognition of their work and that means Europe as a whole loses out. It also impacts negatively on aspiring university students to study science, as they need to witness their local research institutes and universities performing well.
Stripping down European bureaucracy will also help considerably – EU administration for smaller institutes and SMEs can be very disconcerting to new applications from Eastern Europe. The 75% reimbursement of direct eligible costs and 20% reimbursement of indirect eligible costs ultimately only covers part of your total expenditure and this can be quite stifling to poorer institutes that just cannot afford the final costs.
What key efforts need to be made to combat the brain drain of European researchers to the United States?
The United States has always been very good at drawing talent to its shores, particularly now from China and India. They have a good success rate compared to Europe, which really needs to stop the brain drain from East to West and then from Europe to the rest of the world. It’s also now more important than ever to establish collaborative links with China and India.
The branding of European research is also key and the EU needs to be good at marketing its scientific environment as an exciting place to do business. It needs pioneering researchers, good knowledge circulation and information dissemination, large and well-funded multinational scientific projects. In addition to this, it needs to make significant financial grants available to researchers and provide good training opportunities (especially for scientists at the beginning of their career), e.g. the world-renowned Marie Curie Actions.
Large projects with huge resources always attract major investment and often lead to high-level papers and news coverage – Europe needs to do more of this. Bureaucracy and a low salary will really discourage scientists staying in Europe.
Eastern Europe has just come onto the world stage and needs recognition of its potential – fair salaries, fair competition and real effort to become better networked with Western Europe. Researchers are often very confident and they need to be given the opportunity to become integrated in the international scientific community.
Dr Michael Galsworthy