Europe’s rush to innovate
16 Jan 2024 08:15h - 09:00h
Event report
Europe is a world leader in science and research, with its innovation performance increasing for the EU as a whole by almost 10% since 2016, but the bloc struggles to capture the economic value of its innovation prowess.
With global value chains undergoing rapid transformation and key markets for European goods slowing down, how can leaders from finance, research and government come together to address the bottlenecks in Europe’s innovation ecosystem?
More info @ WEF 2024.
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
Dimitri de Vreeze
Europe is often perceived as the museum of the world, where people visit but prefer to go elsewhere for growth and technology. This negative sentiment has persisted for a decade. However, there is a belief that Europe has the potential to leverage its research and innovation strengths to drive progress. It is argued that Europe needs to lean into these strengths and focus on areas where it can make a difference and differentiate itself. Specifically, Europe can play a significant role in bioscience, technology advantages, food, and agro-technology.
To achieve progress, public-private partnerships are considered essential. The collaboration between the public and private sectors can foster competition and innovation. This belief in working together is crucial to ensuring that public initiatives are successful.
Attracting and retaining talented researchers is also vital for Europe’s development. Although the environment in Europe is attractive, many researchers choose to leave for better opportunities elsewhere, such as in the United States. To address this, Europe needs to prioritize efforts to attract and retain talent, ensuring that researchers have reasons to stay and contribute to the region’s progress. The concept of a science passport is being promoted as a potential solution to support talent retention.
To further intensify science and research, certain criteria need to be met. R&D activities should be profitable to ensure continued investment and success. Innovation funding should be purpose-driven rather than merely driven by statistics. It is important to have clear objectives and goals in allocating funding to support research and development.
Additionally, investment in innovation should be scalable. While innovation in smaller markets can be potentially successful, it will not significantly impact Europe as a whole. Thus, it is crucial to focus on scalable innovations that can make a substantial difference.
Europe should strive to act as one entity in the field of science and research. The division among European countries is deemed too small-scale and limits significant innovation. Uniting European innovation under a Science and Research European Passport would help foster collaboration and maximize the region’s potential.
However, there is a need for Europe to be more flexible and less controlling. Investors should be allowed the freedom to decide where to innovate, rather than being overly regulated. Greater control and regulations can put Europe at a disadvantage in global competition. Therefore, Europe must strike a balance between necessary regulations and granting sufficient autonomy for innovation.
In conclusion, although Europe has been perceived as lagging in growth and technology, there is an opportunity for the region to leverage its research and innovation strengths to drive progress. By focusing on key areas, fostering public-private partnerships, attracting and retaining talented researchers, and adopting a more flexible approach, Europe can become a global leader in innovation and industry.
Luciana Lixandru
Luciana Lixandru argues that Europe, despite its potential as a science and research powerhouse, struggles to fully capture its economic output. Despite having good STEM programmes and a similar number of developers as the US, Europe lags in GDP growth and productivity. Lixandru suggests several ways to improve economic output from innovation in Europe.
Firstly, Lixandru believes that Europe needs to focus more on combining fundamental and applied sciences. Many scientific talents from Europe have migrated to the US due to its more experimental and failure-accepting culture. Countries that have successfully combined fundamental and applied sciences earlier have been more successful in innovation and making money from it.
Secondly, Lixandru argues that Europe needs to create a culture that accepts failure. Most scientific or innovative products require experiments, and the majority of them fail. The US and some Asian countries have more accepting cultures towards failure, which has enabled them to innovate faster. Europe needs to foster an environment where failure is seen as a valuable learning experience rather than a setback.
Moreover, Lixandru suggests that Europe might benefit from more public-private partnerships. Public-private partnerships have proven to be successful in countries like the US and Asia. However, in Europe, traditional funding and regulatory structures may not facilitate experimentation and innovation. Embracing more public-private partnerships could provide the necessary financial support and regulatory flexibility for innovation to thrive in Europe.
Additionally, Lixandru emphasizes the need for better strategies to keep local talent in Europe. Currently, a significant number of AI researchers in US universities come from Europe. Lixandru suggests that a shift in strategy can help retain European talent in Europe. This could involve creating more attractive opportunities and providing incentives to encourage talented individuals to stay and contribute to Europe’s innovation and economic growth.
Furthermore, Lixandru believes that Europe is not attracting and retaining enough talented individuals. The success of the US in attracting and retaining talent serves as a valuable lesson for Europe. Lixandru supports the idea that Europe should learn from the US and implement strategies to effectively attract and retain talent, ultimately bolstering the region’s innovation and economic development.
Lastly, the presence of Sequoia, a renowned venture capital firm, in Europe indicates an openness for European business and encourages innovation in the region. Sequoia’s decision to open an office in Europe three years ago highlights the potential and opportunity for European entrepreneurship and venture capital investment.
In conclusion, Luciana Lixandru’s perspective sheds light on the challenges Europe faces in fully realising its economic output from its potential as a science and research powerhouse. By combining fundamental and applied sciences, fostering a culture that accepts failure, promoting public-private partnerships, implementing better strategies for talent retention, and encouraging entrepreneurship and venture capital investment, Europe can work towards unlocking its full potential and achieve more significant economic growth through innovation.
Iliana Ivanova
Europe’s accomplishments in research, innovation, and competitiveness are recognised, with an emphasis on their importance in market competitiveness. However, there is a call for increased investment in these areas, as there is a persistent funding gap of around $100 billion per year in European research and innovation. Furthermore, access to finance is deemed crucial for the success of SMEs and startups, with initiatives like the European Innovation Council advocating for improved access. Attracting and retaining talent is also highlighted as a priority, as skilled individuals are necessary for Europe’s progress in research and innovation.
The significance of artificial intelligence (AI) and high-performance supercomputing in research and innovation is stressed, as they have the potential to revolutionise various sectors. Additionally, the fast development of AI necessitates urgent action, considering the limitations of the EU decision-making process in responding effectively to AI’s implications.
The positive outcomes of the European innovation agenda, including addressing funding gaps and regulatory frameworks, are acknowledged. However, more work needs to be done, particularly in terms of regulation, scaling up, and deployment, as the EU venture capital market lags behind that of the United States. Horizon Europe, one of the largest global research programs, is highlighted as a means of promoting collaboration and openness in research, with an emphasis on protecting and securing the research sector.
Efforts to simplify administrative processes and reduce reporting requirements in science and innovation funding are being made through changes to Horizon Europe. These improvements aim to create a more efficient and effective system for funding research and innovation projects.
In conclusion, while Europe has made strides in research, innovation, and competitiveness, additional investment, improved access to finance, talent attraction, and regulatory advancements are necessary for further progress. The role of AI and high-performance supercomputing is crucial in driving innovation. Horizon Europe plays a significant role in fostering collaboration and protecting the research sector. Efforts to simplify administrative processes and reduce reporting requirements are underway to enhance the effectiveness of science and innovation funding.
Maria Leptin
One argument posits that Europe is not fully capitalising on its abundance of talent. The European Research Council (ERC) has been instrumental in setting up 400 start-ups in Europe, and a significant proportion of projects supported by the ERC have resulted in outputs that are cited in patents. This highlights the potential for innovation and economic growth that exists within Europe.
However, concerns have been raised about Europe’s lagging research funding and innovation compared to China and the United States. Europe has fallen behind these global competitors in terms of high-output publications and investment in research. Notably, Europe has not achieved its goal of spending 3% of its GDP on research and development, which is hindering its ability to compete on a global scale.
To address these challenges, it is crucial to create a more welcoming research environment and improve infrastructure to attract and retain researchers. Countries like the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, which have a high number of foreign researchers, perform exceptionally well in securing ERC grants. Foreign researchers applied more for top-level grants and achieved higher success rates compared to their national counterparts. This underscores the value of brain circulation, whereby the movement of researchers across borders enhances scientific research.
Unfortunately, there are still significant barriers to research and brain circulation in Europe. For instance, there is no researcher passport that facilitates seamless mobility across European countries. Additionally, researchers face restrictions on transferring their pensions from one country to another, which can pose challenges and deter researchers from moving. These barriers need to be addressed to fully harness the benefits of brain circulation and promote collaboration and knowledge exchange among researchers.
To remain competitive and attract talent, individual countries within Europe must make efforts to create more attractive and inclusive environments. For instance, teaching in English and providing opportunities for career growth and independence are factors that make countries more appealing to foreign talent. By making these concerted efforts, European nations can become more attractive and fuel economic growth and innovation.
In conclusion, Europe possesses immense talent, as evidenced by the success of the ERC in the establishment of start-ups and innovative outputs. However, Europe’s research funding and innovation are lagging behind competitors, necessitating a deeper emphasis on creating an accommodating research environment and improving infrastructure. Furthermore, facilitating brain circulation and removing barriers to research mobility within Europe are key steps towards fostering collaboration and attracting talent. Individually, countries must strive to be more alluring and inclusive, as this will contribute to Europe’s overall success in retaining talent and fostering innovation.
Nikolai Denkov
Europe was once a prominent leader in the field of science during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. However, it has gradually fallen behind due to its slower realization of the importance of integrating fundamental and applied sciences. Europe’s failure to combine these two aspects of science has hindered its ability to remain at the forefront of innovation.
To address this issue, it is argued that Europe needs to foster a culture of experimentation and collaboration between the public and private sectors. This collaborative approach can help accelerate scientific progress and drive innovation. It is also suggested that Europe should adopt a modular approach to big projects, allowing for greater flexibility and the ability to respond to changing technological advancements.
One of the factors contributing to Europe’s declining scientific innovation is its stringent regulatory environment. The strict regulations in Europe do not provide sufficient space for experimentation and innovation in the scientific field. This has impeded Europe’s competitiveness and hindered its ability to keep up with countries that have a more flexible regulatory framework.
To regain its position as a leader in scientific innovation, one proposed solution is for the public sector to select and initiate funding for promising technologies that may not be readily funded by the business sector. Examples of these technologies include artificial intelligence (AI), brain research, and space technology. After a certain period of public funding, these technologies should be transferred to the private sector for further development and commercialization.
The future of AI is expected to merge with biology, creating a new level of innovation that can think and operate similarly to the human brain. This integration has the potential to revolutionize industries such as healthcare and technology.
The evaluation process for research and innovation projects is a significant challenge in Europe. The current system often involves excessive administrative procedures, which can delay progress and hinder scientific advancements. Simplifying and reducing the reporting requirements could allow researchers and innovators to focus more on real scientific and innovative results, enhancing overall scientific productivity in Europe.
In conclusion, Europe’s decline in scientific innovation can be attributed to its slower adoption of integrating fundamental and applied sciences, stringent regulations, and a lack of collaboration between the public and private sectors. To regain its leading position, Europe should foster a culture of experimentation and collaboration, adopt a modular approach to big projects, initiate funding for promising technologies, streamline the evaluation process, and anticipate the integration of AI and biology. By addressing these challenges and embracing a more innovative mindset, Europe can once again become a global powerhouse in scientific innovation.
Audience
During the discussions, one of the main points that emerged was the need for additional support in the transition from patent to startup. It was highlighted that three quarters of funding for startups comes from an endowment made by licensing patents. However, it was also emphasized that having many papers and patents is not necessarily significant, apart from personal CVs. The argument put forward was that more support is required at this stage to facilitate the transition from patent to product and eventually attract the interest of large companies.
In addition to this, the importance of research and innovation in Europe was also emphasized. Martin Hirayama, the State Secretary for Education, Research, and Innovation in Switzerland, highlighted the global significance of research and innovation, stating that it is not only important for Europe but also for the international community as a whole. The discussions underlined the positive sentiment towards research and innovation and stressed the need for international cooperation in these areas.
Furthermore, concern was expressed over the possibility of Europe becoming exclusive in strategically important areas. The audience raised questions about Europe defining more strategic sectors and potentially excluding other countries. The need for international cooperation in these strategic sectors was emphasized, highlighting the importance of partnerships for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Another point of discussion was the complexity and bureaucracy involved in accessing public funds for research. It was argued that the process for securing public funds is too complicated and time-consuming, involving numerous steps and requiring proof at every stage. The sentiment expressed towards this issue was negative, with the belief that easier access and less bureaucracy in public funding is needed to support research efforts.
In contrast, the US model of public funding for research was considered preferable. The discussions highlighted that the US model allows for a faster and simpler process with fewer checks during the funding process. This was seen as a positive aspect of the US system and led to the argument that adopting a similar model could benefit research and innovation efforts.
In conclusion, the discussions covered various important aspects, including the need for additional support in the patent to startup transition, the importance of research and innovation in Europe and the wider international community, concerns over Europe becoming exclusive in strategic sectors, the complexity and bureaucracy involved in accessing public funds for research, and the preference for the US model of public funding. These discussions shed light on the challenges and opportunities within the research and innovation landscape and underscored the importance of collaboration and streamlining processes for effective and efficient research outcomes.
José Luis Escrivá
José Luis Escrivá identifies four major challenges in Europe that need to be addressed: the lack of risk-taking compared to the U.S., excess regulation hindering entrepreneurship, the need for initiatives to attract and retain talent, and the imperative to enhance knowledge transfer from academia to the private sector.
To address the lack of venture capital availability in Europe, Escrivá suggests that the public sector can fill this gap by utilising funds from the next generation EU. He argues that Europe can reward talent and success without compromising its income redistribution policies, emphasising that it is not a trade-off between the two. In terms of knowledge transfer, Escrivá supports utilising incentive-driven approaches to encourage collaboration between academia and the private sector.
Completing the single market in Europe is seen as advantageous, as demonstrated by the benefits experienced in the U.S. Efforts are currently underway to achieve this in sectors such as finance and labour. Additionally, Escrivá emphasises the need for greater integration within Europe, believing that further integration can help Europe catch up with other regions.
To increase labour mobility, Escrivá argues for the establishment of a single labour market in Europe. Furthermore, he suggests that Europe needs to be more ambitious in rewarding talent to drive innovation and growth.
Initiatives for greater labour mobility, such as the Blue Card and single-permit direction initiatives, are supported by Escrivá. These initiatives aim to facilitate mobility and make it easier for individuals to work across European countries.
Escrivá highlights the need to encourage the private sector to take more risks in order to spur economic growth. He points out that the European financial system is more focused on banking and lacks risk-taking institutions compared to the U.S. To address this, Escrivá argues that the public sector should play a role in promoting risk-taking.
Overall, Escrivá believes that the public sector should take an active role in addressing the challenges faced by Europe. By incentivising risk-taking, attracting and retaining talent, and promoting knowledge transfer, Europe can enhance its economic growth and position in the global market.
Speakers
A
Audience
Speech speed
179 words per minute
Speech length
582 words
Speech time
195 secs
DD
Dimitri de Vreeze
Speech speed
210 words per minute
Speech length
1248 words
Speech time
356 secs
II
Iliana Ivanova
Speech speed
166 words per minute
Speech length
1389 words
Speech time
501 secs
JL
José Luis Escrivá
Speech speed
171 words per minute
Speech length
802 words
Speech time
281 secs
LL
Luciana Lixandru
Speech speed
177 words per minute
Speech length
1098 words
Speech time
371 secs
ML
Maria Leptin
Speech speed
179 words per minute
Speech length
1120 words
Speech time
376 secs
ND
Nikolai Denkov
Speech speed
174 words per minute
Speech length
1123 words
Speech time
386 secs
Related event
