Finnegan's Take

MGQ ♥ Tajani 4EVA

2010-03-17T17:53:14Z

The Commissioners for Innovation and Industry have been saying the kindest of things about one another (through gritted teeth)

Was it just me or were Commissioner Maire Geogeghan-Quinn and Antonio Tajani overdoing the mutual appreciation at their joint press conference on Wednesday?

They each seemed at great pains to say how well they get on and how they are cooperating on the drafting of a “harmonious” new innovation plan.

I asked them why the plan had been delayed and why one of them (Tajani) is referring to it as an innovation plan ‘looking at business innovation in the broadest terms’; while the other (MGQ) calls it a ‘Research & Innovation plan’.

Well, it’s certainly not because of internal disagreements said Tajani - perhaps a tad defensively.

The fact is that the plan - once referred to as the European Innovation Act and controlled by DG Enterprise - has been postponed several times and is now a ‘joint effort’ with increasing input from DG Research.

There were other tell-tale signs of deeper disagreement: Tajani noted that innovation is about more than just R&D; while MGQ pointed out that R&D has moved to the heart of EU policy thanks to its prominence in the Europe 2020 strategy.

Tajani went on to say growth is all about getting finance to SMEs; Geoghegan-Quinn said growth comes from innovation and innovation comes from R&D.

Of course, they can both be partly right but it will be interesting to see whose fingerprints are most evident when the innovation plan eventually materialises in the autumn.

Poor old DG Education - which still hosts the European Institute for Innovation & Technology, and ran the European Year of Creativity & Innovation - must be wishing they were on hand to get invovled in this most polite of political scraps.

Ultimately it may come down to who is closer to Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. Tajani is a second-termer and Vice-President but MGQ has her charms too.

Finding an excuse to give the President flowers is always a nice trick…

What should we rename ‘FP8′?

2010-02-12T10:01:02Z

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

- William Shakespeare

EU officials are toying with the idea of renaming Europe’s Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. At present, the seventh framework programme (FP7) is under review and governments are already jockeying for position in the battle for funding that will precede the launch of ‘FP8′.

The idea of renaming FP8 should be welcomed given its potential to improve public understanding of what the EU does in terms of its multi-billion euro support for research.

The move should also be welcomed by looking to improve SME involvement in the framework programmes. The trouble with the rather lengthy current title is that so few European citizens know what it it’s all about.

Imagine the framework programme were a product given to marketeers and brand managers to sell to the public. They would surely have come up with something shorter than the Framework Programme for Research and Technozzzzz…..

And they would have avoided adding yet another acronym to the alphabet soup of European science jargon. Who needs the FP8 when we already have ERA, ERAB, REA, ESF, COST, EIT, and KICs?

So. What should it be called?

Well, it has to be short, simple and, ideally, work in several langauges. At the very least it should translate readily or use familiar terminology.

One sugguestion might have been to go for something like Euroscience - but this is already taken.

You might prefer Euroresearch or Euroinnovation, although those are (a) not as linguistically universal and (b) not strictly accurate since the focus is on science and research rather than specifically on innovation.

How about SciFund? Or ResFund?

“Have you put in your SciFund grant application?”

Works for me.

Let us know what you think…

Can we afford the fruits of innovation?

2010-02-04T09:01:19Z

A troubling thought: are the pro-innovation policy wonks talking to the cost-containment pencil pushers?

Doing the rounds of innovation conferences in Brussels, it’s clear that a huge section of the EU’s political and industry machinery is convinced we need to be more innovative.

The logic will be familiar to most: we can’t compete with Asia’s low cost base, so we’ll have to innovate our way into a competitive position.

We have to produce (and patent) something new and necessary which will take our industry “up the value chain”.

Listening to the logic, it’s hard not to leave these innovation sermons fully convinced.

However, I also cover health. So I find myself at conferences on healthcare, where the dominant narrative is now cost containment.

The fear - which has been with us for some time - is that medical inflation is running way ahead of economic growth. The crisis has only made matters worse, leading health ministers to devote great energy to doing things cheaper, smarter, more efficiently.

The question is whether these two wings of the policymaking machinery are taking to one another.

The EU (through the Commission and the European Investment Bank) has pumped millions into developing innovative medicines and medical devices.

That’s justifiable because it’s good for jobs and provides finance for R&D at a time when the credit well has run dry.

But what will we do when the companies we supported come back to us to sell their wares?

The public sector is the healthcare industry’s biggest client. Will we be able to afford an even more potent cancer drug? What about an even more detailed ultrasound machine?

Our Health Technology Assessment tools will come to one of two conclusions:

a) These new innovations do not add sufficient value to justify their expense because we already have pretty good ultrasound machines. Therefore it was wasteful to fund their development.

b) The latest in high-tech gadgetry and wonderdrugs will save lives and must be purchased. In that case, we pay for them twice: we pay for the R&D and we pay again for the product.

Unless we export shedloads of these products, we are paying our way to a very tricky problem. And if the EU’s innovations are of such high value that only the top tier of US and Australian hospitals can afford them, the external market is relatively small.

So, what to do?

The future of innovation must be in mass marketing mid-level technology. Super-high-tech stuff is too expensive for emerging markets, meaning we are our own main customer.

The trick will be to take the excellent medicines and technology we already have, and make them cheaper - and therefore more accessible to the billions of new Asian consumers.

Making things more cost-efficient is still innovation. It’s just that the added value is the lower cost.

That’s the economic and political argument. The question of whether it’s more ethical to sell 100,000 cheap scanners to Asia or 10,000 souped-up MRI machines to ourselves is moot.

Jobs crisis: growth in ‘independent’ employees

2010-02-03T14:08:05Z

More workers are being hired on ‘no benefits’ contracts as employers look to cut costs

At a meeting of European industrialists in Brussels yesterday, the President & CEO of Philips Electronics highlighted a new trend: in the Netherlands, he said, there is a marked increase in the number of independent workers.

These, he said, are people who have chosen to take control of their own careers; they reject the old model of relying on others for pension and health benefits. And good for them, he added, for they are entrepreneurs.

His fellow industrialists nodded in approval. This was indeed good news for companies who have had a habit of offering gold-plated pension plans for senior executives.

Likewise, the handful of politicians and bureaucrats in the room - who enjoy some of the best employment conditions in Europe - were also pleased by this new-found lust for entrepreneurship in the workforce.

It might be a mistake to view the widespread move from employee to independence as a choice.

A recent Business Week article on the ‘Disposable Worker’ highlights that hidden behind the rising unemployment numbers of job losses is a tectonic shift in how people are employed.

For some, there are surely benefits in the form of flexibility and freedom to work with whomever they chose. For others, it brings insecurity.

From the point of view of industrialists and policymakers, it is important to consider how this new arrangment affects behaviour.

For example, we know that people often delay having children until they feel they are in a sound financial position. Given the demographic challenge Europe faces - and the productivity, pensions and healthcare crises it will bring - it would be worrying if the birth rate does not take an upward turn.

Likewise, consumer confidence is affected: would you buy a new car or a house if you know a serious illness would decimate your earning power?

Companies and governments might be happy to hand responsibility for health and pensions to individual workers - but if this phenomenon is more than a temporary result of the jobs crisis, its implications warrant more attention.

The big question is how this fits with the much-vaunted flexicurity policy. It has the ‘flex’ but what of the ‘-curity’?!

[To read EurActiv's report on the industrialists' vision for Europe, click here]

European Innovation Act delayed

2010-01-29T10:22:44Z

Plans to publish a European Innovation Act ahead of the spring meeting of EU leaders are on hold.

The new innovation strategy is now more likely to be published this summer.

In the meantime, the new European Commissioners - particularly those responsible for industry and innovation - are trying to redraw lines of responsibility which have been shaken up by changes in the EU executive.

Read the full story on EurActiv.

(Hat tip: Cartoon link from ‘UK After the Recession’ blog)

Want to buy cheap drugs?

2010-01-05T10:34:03Z

Sale of the century: EU governments are selling off swine flu vaccines

Having grossly overestimated the demand for vaccines against the once-dreaded H1N1 virus, health ministers across Western Europe are rushing to flog spare flu drugs in a mass medicines January sale.

France ordered 94 million doses of the new flu vaccine and vaccinated just 5 million citizens, leaving it with warehouses full of unused medicines which it hopes to sell on to developing countries.

It’s a similar story in Germany and Spain, both of whom want to cancel orders with drugs companies and return unused medicines. The UK, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Canada have also realised that they have over-ordered and are being forced to sell, donate or store millions of excess medicines.

Bad news from rich governments; bad news for rich vaccine manufacturers; good news for poorer countries who can now demand deep discounts on ’second-hand’ medicines.

Part of the reason that a billion Euro worth of vaccines are sitting in storage in Europe is that it was originally thought that two doses would be needed to achieve immunisation. It emerged in the autumn - after the orders were placed - that one dose would do (funnily enough, Chinese drug-maker Sinovac had always believed a single-jab strategy would do the trick).

But even allowing for this double-ordering, it is clear that demand for the vaccine is far lower than expected because (a) the public was a little uneasy about such a new vaccine and (b) the flu simply wasn’t as lethal as feared.

At a meeting on healthcare innovation in Brussels last month, an MEP noted that France had spent €1.5 billion on swine flu medicines, compared to €770 million on cancer research. Should governments be spending twice as much on swine flu vaccines as on cancer research? I’d prefer to take my chances with a heavy flu and invest in cancer.

Somewhere along the way, fear triumphed over reason and health ministers raided the piggy bank and splurged on flu medicines.

Call it Fear Fever.

Europe’s first Innovation Commissioner

2009-11-27T15:14:37Z

Ireland’s Máire Geoghegan Quinn has been handed the newly-created innovation portfolio at the EU executive. (Full coverage of new Commission, click here).

The job is an expanded version of the old Research & Science post, and comes just months before the first European Innovation Act is due to be published.

The creation of an innovation commissioner has been well flagged, with European Commission President José Manuel Barroso having repeatedly pledged to streamline innovation policy.

Ann Mettler, Executive Director of Lisbon Council, a Brussels-based think tank, said the new role did not come as a surprise and would be “a cross-cutting” portfolio that works across several departments.

“It’s important that the new Commissioner embodies innovation within the Commission and challenges the conventional wisdom,” she said.

One element of the new portfolio which remains unclear is precisely how the move affects the Commission’s DG Enterprise – now called Industry & Entrepreneurship – which is currently charged with drafting the Innovation Act.

Mettler said it would be wrong to view the reshuffle as a battle between commissioners, as she expects to see greater “sharing of ownership” in Barroso’s new team.

“The old silo approach is the antithesis of innovation,” she said. Mettler added that it will be interesting to see who launches the new Innovation Act, and suggested it come be a joint initiative between the Commissioners for Innovation and Industry.

The Commission has also revealed that the new European Institute for Innovation & Technology (EIT) will be run by the Education Commissioner. This two is an initiative likely to be of interest to Quinn.

The EIT is seen as a pet project of President Barroso and has recently moved into its new headquarters in Budapest. The first of its flagship Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) will be announced on December 16.

Quinn was a government minister in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and has served two terms at the EU Court of Auditors. Her appointment raised some eyebrows in Ireland, where she has had a low profile since the late ’90s. And leading Irish Times columnist Fintan O’Toole questioned whether she was fit for office, given her misuse of power while Minister of Justice.

Medicines policy moves to Health Commissioner

2009-11-27T13:27:39Z

Shock! Horror! NGOs have gotten their way despite fierce resistance from the pharma industry

Pharmaceutical policy will move to the European Commission’s health and consumer wing, DG Sanco, as part of a shake-up of responsibilities by President Barroso. This means control of medicines, which rested with DG Entrprise & Industry, is now under the wing of new health chief, John Dalli.

Patient groups have been lobbying hard for this since the dawn of time but big pharma has put up equally stern resistance. NGOs argued that medicines policy comes under the health departments in almost all member states, but industry has noted that, at EU level, pharmaceuticals has more impact on trade than anything else.

The news is a blow to DG Enterprise - now called Industry and Entrepreneurship - which could even lose control of the European Innovation Act to the new Commissioner for Innovation & Research, and also cedes the Better Regulation unit to the Secretariat General.

DG Sanco will now be responsible for the European Medicines Agency, and has also been given responsibility for biotechnology, pesticides and health, which will move from DG Environment.

Overall, it looks like a boost for the Health Commissioner and the new Innovation & Research Commissioner, at the expense of DG Enterprise and DG Environment (which will also be overshadowed by the new Climate Action Commissioner).

Lots more to follow on EurActiv today and throughout next week.

Who is the most powerful politician in Europe?

2009-11-23T08:39:18Z

It’s a question set to cause bitter disputes at pub table quizzes, given the variety of plausible answers.

EU Leaders have chosen Herman Van Rompuy as the first permanent president of the European Council. So will he be the boss in Brussels?

Well, the new foreign affairs position – handed to the UK’s Catherine Ashton – could develop into a highly visible international role, akin to the US Secretary of State, and will represent the EU on major issues like the Middle East.

And despite the creation of a new European Council President, EU member states will still take turns running the nitty gritty of the Council’s agenda for six months apiece.

Then there’s Jerzy Buzek, President of the European Parliament, who can at least claim to be a directly-elected power-broker.

And, lest we forget, José Manuel Barroso has been reappointed as President of the European Commission for a new five-year term. The Commission continues to set the tone in Brussels, proposing legislation and making big decisions in areas like competition law, so Barroso’s claim is as strong as any.

(Outside observers are wondering just how many Presidents Europe really needs.)

Still, as the revamped European institutions settle into the new post-Lisbon era, the chances are that the most influential figures in Brussels are still Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy.

MEPs’ “crisis” group should morph into Innovation Committee

2009-11-09T09:01:36Z

The temporary ‘crisis committee’ should take on innovation policy

Earlier this month, the European Parliament’s new committee on ‘financial, economic and social crisis’ met for the first time, pledging to examine how Europe got into this mess and how we might get out of it. All the talk was of reflecting on past mistakes and investing in job creation.

This sounds like the perfect terms of reference for a committee charged with looking at innovation policy.

The committee’s rapporteur, Pervenche Berès, has promised MEPs will do what politicians rarely have the luxury of doing: they will ’sit back, think and have long-term vision’. [My EurActiv colleague Claire Davenport has and extensive interview with Berès here]

The new committee is due to sit for just 12 months and will produce a report on exiting the manifold crises before disbanding.

But they shouldn’t disband. In 12 months’ time, we will have a new European Innovation Act and a ‘streamlined‘ innovation policy at the European Commission.

This cross-cutting issue requires oversight from a parliamentary committee with a cross-cutting outlook and mandate. The solution seems simple.

Let the crisis committee study the landscape for 12 months, produce an exit strategy (based on innovation policy), before morphing into a permanent European Parliament Innovation Committee.