Research, creativity and innovation

During the Lisbon European Council held in March 2000, the European Union set itself a strategic objective for the next decade - to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world. Research and Technological Development (RTD) was deemed essential to the achievement of this most ambitious goal. Furthermore, in an attempt to emphasise the crucial importance of both applied and academic research, the Lisbon Council put research policy at the very top of its agenda. The Council went on to endorse a proposal recommending the creation of a European Research Area.

The Barcelona summit held in March 2002 went a bit further and declared that direct investment in Research and Development (R&D) within the European Union should increase to three per cent of GDP by 2010. The publication in September 2002 of a European Commission communiqué entitled More Research For Europe, Towards Three Per Cent Of GDP, launched a Europe-wide consultation process which resulted in a number of provocative observations from both the public and private sectors.

It is good to note that the private sector seemed particularly well-disposed towards the three per cent objective due to its specific focus on business investment. At the political level, both the current and acceding states publicly applauded the importance of research and innovation and resolved to launch new or reinforce existing measures in order to stimulate economic growth through research and innovation.

Away from the political rhetoric, it is good to note that the current average figure for R&D spending within the EU currently hovers around the 1.99 per cent of GDP mark. Data released by Eurostat and the Commission's DG Research last February 25 shows that "while R&D investments have almost reached the landmark figure of two per cent of GDP, the gap in research spending between the EU and its biggest competitors, and indeed the Barcelona target, remains significant".

Additionally, the numbers reveal that EU spending on research and development as a proportion of GDP increased by just 0.01 per cent between 2001 and 2002. Of considerable significance is the fact that Germany, France and the UK accounted for nearly two thirds of the Union's total R&D investment for 2001. Surprisingly enough, both France and the UK registered a substantial decrease in R&D investment during 2002. Again quoting Eurostat and DG Research, the average proportion of R&D spending in acceding states during 2001 stood at about 0.84 per cent - with Slovenia and the Czech Republic displaying the highest intensity of R&D expenditure.

From a purely Maltese perspective, these figures don't make for very exciting reading, not least because they expound the real magnitude of the Barcelona target. I stand to be corrected in this assertion but I believe that an overall figure for local R&D spending is not yet available, or has not been published to-date. This effectively means that we are not yet in a position to accurately determine the extent, pattern and nature of current R&D expenditure in Malta. Furthermore, our approach to R&D issues is too fragmented and our reaction elephantine, thus rendering us incapable of swiftly leveraging on our existing strengths in order to exploit the very exciting opportunities available in Europe.

So where do we go from here? At the outset, we must be in a position to accurately determine Malta's scientific research capacity in terms of investment, human resources and available facilities. It is encouraging to note that a very significant thrust towards the attainment of this objective is being made by the Malta Council for Science and Technology. Additionally, the national 2004 financial estimates show a commitment of Lm300,000 towards the implementation of a Research Technology Development and Innovation (RTDI) programme. These efforts should be heartily commended, supported and maintained - but it is not enough.

Of much greater importance is the need to cultivate a culture of scientific curiosity and innovation among our younger generation. We need to excite and stimulate their creativity and thinking process by presenting them with thought-provoking scientific challenges. Who knows, out of 1,000 ideas, 10 may directly contribute towards innovative product-breakthroughs and demand-generation.

At a national level, we simply cannot continue to have a myriad of national priorities without focusing on the few that can be realistically traded for high added-value business activities. We must finally learn not to penalise failure because accepting failure and learning from it will push us beyond the confines of mediocrity.

I believe that this is one of the new-economy challenges facing Malta. We have to understand that Malta's future cannot depend on ill-advised attempts to attract large-scale mass-manufacturing facilities which are a burden on the environment and on our infrastructure. Furthermore, economic and social considerations will continue to dictate that such facilities will always relocate to areas where operational costs are lowest. Our efforts are therefore best invested elsewhere and I believe that we have the potential to become a base for European research.

We must compete on the basis of scientific excellence and I believe that Malta can eventually become a net exporter of intellectual power. However, we must learn to harness European Union R&D for our own purposes and, I repeat, we need to leverage on our existing strengths in order to capitalise on existing R&D potential within an enlarged Europe.

A colleague of mine recently suggested that if we should manage to persuade a number of multi-nationals to transfer some of their research capacity to Malta, we could possibly attain, and exceed the European Union's three per cent GDP spending objective. Think about it, with Germany, France and the UK collectively investing over €115 billion on R&D annually, it may just be possible.

(Reference: Cordis Focus March 2004 Issue 240.)

Mr St John sits on the board of the Malta Council for Science and Technology.