Jointly published by Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford

and Akad~miai Kiad6, Budapest

Scientometrics,

Vol. 45, No. 3 (1999) 485-486

A D V I S O R Y FUNCTIONS AT E U R O P E A N L E V E L

J. BORGMAN Former President of the European Science and Technology Assembly (ESTA)

Nieuwe Parklaan 4, NL-2597 LC Den Haag (The Netherlands)

Recently the European Commission has announced plans for a major revision of its internal advisory structure in relation tO a new management approach to the Fifth Framework Programme. At the level of the so-called key actions special 'External Advisory Groups' are being foreseen. At the policy level some of the missions of ESTA and IRDAC will survive in a new and scaled-down single advisory body. As a former Chairman of ESTA I am leaning on earlier ESTA advice to present some personal observations.

The External Advisory Groups be welcomed as a uniform and transparent template for the advisory function at the level of the operational programmes, embodied in the key actions. It should be noted that the intended transparency requires that all relevant advice is tabled in the External Advisory Groups; the goal of transparency would be endangered if the advice of these groups would be submitted to and filtered by another (anonymous) external advisory elite on its way to the European Commission. Furthermore, the Commission might be well advised to check whether its own coordinating responsibilities could be sufficiently exercised in the new environment.

The merging of ESTA and IRDAC in one body with two chambers, decorated in pure academic and industrial colour schemes, respectively, needs further clarification in terms of a meaningful agenda before it can be understood how this merger relates to the new structures in the Fifth Framework Programme. ESTA's composition, only recently reconf'n'med, is already a blend of academic and industrial cultures. This has proven to be a demanding but also inspiring and fruitful formula, well geared to the needs of the European Commission with their emphasis on societal goals. It would be a severe loss if the plans of the Commission would result in an unintended segregation between the two cultures at European level, contrary to the spirit and the needs of our times.

There is another element in the plans of the Commission that merits further attention. Actually it is a missing element: the representation of established European organisations in the membership of the new body. This dimension is not mentioned any

013~o-:91~.*,,: ' 399/US $15. O0 Copyrigt:~. ~ 1999 Akad~miai Kiad6, Budapest All rights reserved

J. BORGMAN: ADVISORY FUNCTIONS AT EUROPEAN LEVEL

more in the restructuring plans of the Commission and could mean that the new body will consist of individuals with more dominant national reference flames.

This brings me to the question of the cost-effectiveness of massive uncoordinated advisory efforts. Especially when the European Union is in the definition phase of a Framework Programme every self-respecting European stakeholder publishes more or less well-timed studies and reports, addressing relevant issues; believing that their message has unique qualities it is only in rare instances that they join forces to save labour. A conservative guess suggests that the preparation of the Fitih Framework Programme consumes at least 150 man-years for the production of advice, requiring another 50 man-years in Brussels for reading and sorting.

The question can be raised whether all these efforts are cost-effective. This is a legitimate question since the European advisory market is not self-regulating. Much advice is not asked for but is offered free. There are reasons to believe that the load on the advisory circuit can be and should be reduced, thus releasing time for productive work. Improving the transparency of the advisory pyramid can help to streamline meaningful participation, focusing on genuine European added value: the elusive but ultimate benchmark of the EU Framework Programmes.

486 Scientometrics 45 (1999)