The battle of the scientists

AT THE end of a hard year Europe’s leaders are grappling with familiar problems—how to revive gasping economies, what to do about the Russian menace. But a quieter source of discontent is also bubbling up: Europe’s scientists. The continent of Galileo and Darwin is not about to cast off its glorious heritage. But the boffins have two recent causes for concern. One is a new investment plan devised by the European Commission to kickstart growth, which relies partly on taking €2.7 billion ($3.4 billion) of money previously devoted to Horizon 2020, the EU’s science fund. The Royal Society, an august British scientific body, and others have complained about the money grab.

The second is over the role of science in European policymaking. Three years ago Anne Glover, a Scottish molecular biologist, became the EU’s first chief scientific adviser. She could also be its last. Her mandate expired, along with the previous commission’s, and Jean-Claude Juncker, the new president, has not seen fit to renew it. Not in office long enough to absorb the diplomatic habits of Brussels insiders, Ms Glover was notably outspoken on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), describing opponents as suffering from “a form of madness”. That was too much for green NGOs, who called for her head in a letter to Mr Juncker. Some saw in this the seeds of Ms Glover’s downfall.

In fact Mr Juncker’s commission has given greens little cause for cheer in the six weeks it has been in office. Only this week it infuriated them by shelving two long-planned environmental proposals. Ms Glover’s troubles had more to do with a struggle to get the attention of EU bureaucrats. Alberto Alemanno, a professor of EU law, points out that there are many ways to channel scientific advice to politicians beyond creating a single senior adviser. Mr Juncker seems in no hurry to decide how, or whether, to revive the job. There are other priorities, says a spokeswoman, and policymakers are not short of scientific advice.

Yet even sober-minded observers worry about the signal Ms Glover’s departure sends. There are plenty of policy challenges ahead, from synthetic biology to artificial intelligence to the applications of new materials like graphene. And Europe’s agonies over GMOs illustrate the problems that arise when science is not well integrated into policymaking. Despite repeated studies finding no risk to human health from the consumption of GMOs, just one such crop (a form of maize) is cultivated in the EU, and in only a handful of countries. Under a new proposal countries will even be able to deny farmers the right to purchase GM seeds that have been approved at pan-European level. It is rare for the EU to return powers to national governments once it has acquired them. But politicians saw no other way to break the impasse.

Or take data protection, which excites peculiar passion in the European breast. After the NSA scandal erupted in America, the European Parliament passed fierce regulations to enshrine privacy rights that make it hard for medical researchers to use personalised data. The legislation would have been much improved had its drafters heeded scientific advice, says Stephan Kuster of Science Europe, an association of European research groups. (The proposal has yet to become law.)

Many countries struggle to work out how to ground policy in sound science. But critics have a bigger worry. Europe, they fear, is clinging desperately to old certainties as technological change sweeps past. Some detect signs of this attitude in the tensions between the EU and big tech firms. The European Court of Justice has forced Google to consider removing links to articles at individuals’ request. And the European Parliament has passed a non-binding resolution urging the “unbundling” of large search engines. This, hints an American official, may have more to do with protecting European incumbents than with competition law.

Change we don’t believe in

Not all the criticism is fair. Data protection and GMOs are not mere technocratic concerns, and the rules for them should not be dispassionately crafted by number-crunchers. Europeans take different views about how their data should be used, or what foods they wish to see in their supermarkets, and politicians should reflect these concerns. Nor is America the libertarian paradise of some imaginations, as Charlemagne, a former resident, can attest.

Americans are not alone in lamenting EU timidity. Mark Walport, Britain’s chief scientific adviser, wrote recently that in Europe the precautionary principle has drifted from “a holding position pending further evidence to what is now effectively a stop sign”. Moreover, Europe has a serious innovation problem. Politicians routinely travel to California for a sprinkling of Silicon Valley stardust, but rarely act to improve the investment climate at home. Lawmakers celebrate the consumer benefits of apps like Uber, a taxi service, but are loth to amend laws protecting incumbents. France has just become the latest country to clamp down on Uber. Small firms seeking money struggle to find alternatives to lumbering banks (although the commission is working on this). Outside the Nordics no EU country meets the European target of devoting 3% of GDP to research and development.

There is, even so, a good-news story to tell. Europe’s cities hum with smart minds and entrepreneurial energy. Startup clusters have emerged from Bratislava to Barcelona, as well as in established hubs like London and Berlin. They will benefit from Mr Juncker’s promise to propose legislation to complete the single market for digital services in the first half of 2015. And the EU has improved the way it distributes money to scientists. Of course, more would be nice. Just 7% of the EU budget is devoted to Horizon 2020, against 38% for farm subsidies. Reversing those numbers would surely quieten the doubters.