Jean-Claude Burgelman joined the European Commission in 1999 as a Visiting Scientist in the Joint Research Centre (theInstitute of Prospective Technological Studies - IPTS), where he became Head of the ICT unit in 2005. In January 2008, hejoined the Bureau of European Policy Advisers as adviser for innovation policy. Since 1-10-2008, he joined DG RTD, as advisorin charge of Research of top level advisory boards like the European Research Area Board. Till 2000 he was full professor ofcommunication technology policy at the Free University of Brussels, director of the Centre for Studies on Media, Informationand telecommunication and involved in science and technology assessment. He has been visiting professor at the Universityof Antwerp, the European College of Brughes and the University of South Africa and sits on several academic journals. Hechaired and is now a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Innovation as well as a member of itsScience Advisory Committee.

Could you tell me a bit about your background?

Iunderstand you are the European Commission now. Soyou work in foresight?Yes and before that in the academic sector. I used to work inforesight and two years ago I moved from research to researchstrategy. I am no longer doing foresight research as such. I did lotsin ICT and information technology in the past but I am now workingon issues about the European Research Area strategy with a focuson the next 20 years.

Can you envisage any major wild cards, positive ornegative, that may occur in the next 20 years and areany particularly relevant to EU research?

The first wild card is to consider if we can get a unified Europeandefence. This would generate a need for a European defenceresearch policy, which in turn would have a huge impact onwhatever we might do more widely in research. It is comparable tothe impact of the UN. In is a positive wild card.A negative wild card from a European Commission perspective is thestrengthening of national research strategies, which is somethingthat has happened because of the monetary crisis. People are nowdefending their own turf and trying to maximize their own research –no longer a European approach but a national approach.

Are these your two favourite wild cards at themoment?

No, there are many but these are things that I might be talkingabout more in the near future. There is another card I would liketo mention that is not wild but is rather predictable. If we canmanage to get a European unified research innovation market, itwill stimulate a need for more research policy. It is something onwhich we are working and if all goes well it should be achieved. Butin terms of how I understand wild cards, those two are the mostunexpected ones which could have deep effects.

What will be the most dramatic impact of these wildcards and how do you think it should be addressed byfuture research or policy?

The first one will make research much easier. You create anenormous amount of resources for doing it and secondly you cancreate the DARPA effect, which we lack in Europe now. We do nothave defence-related research at an EU level, it is all nationallybased. Neither do we have a similar blue sky initiative as in the US.The impact of DARPA on the development of the internet, was highlysignificant. I am not advocating an exact equivalent as a policyitem – but if we can find a way to get similar leveraging effects itcould be desirable. The alternative is the (re)emergence of researchnationalism. This would be catastrophic for European researchbecause in recent years we have recognized the need for scale inequipment and funding as science and technology become moresophisticated and complex. European member states cannot affordto duplicate their research investments 27 times and it dispersesqualified researchers as well as infrastructure. Modern large-scaleresearch is labour- and capital-intensive, so you cannot have asingle effort in every country, you cannot have a large-scale effort innanotechnology in every country – well you can, but if you put it alltogether you will have better research.

Have you detected any weak signals that hint at thegrowing likelihood of these two wild cards?

In the defence theme I don’t see weak signals that point in thatdirection, but I think we will get there because it is a generationalproblem. It is crystal clear that, militarily speaking, each Europeancountry for itself does not mean anything. There is a growingidea that we must act in a more integrated way. There is also therealisation that if Europe wants to be a global player it needs acommon foreign and defence policy. I think these would make itpossible.With research nationalism, however, you see weak signals in howthe debates are conducted today about research policy. The fact,for example, that the UK has decided to cut 25 percent of its overallresearch budget will inevitably have a boomerang effect.; actorswill try to replace that funding by tapping other funding sources. Sothere are signals there.

Do you see any other weak signals, maybe notnecessarily linked to these two wild cards, that areparticularly relevant to future changes that maysignificantly affect the European Research Area?

One is an extremely good signal – it is a generational one. We havebeen talking a lot recently with young PhD students and I see twoencouraging trends. What I see – and this is intuition – is that mostof these students think European. They think in terms not of fortressEurope, but in terms of doing a PhD in Finland with part of it inBarcelona and then getting an appointment in Britain. So there is anincreasing consensus that that is the road to research and it is verydifferent to the thinking 20 years ago. This is encouraging, becausethese people know that you cannot multiply 27 initiatives, becausethey simply don’t think like that.Secondly, what I also found is that these researchers base theirdecisions primarily on research excellence. This is extremelyencouraging, because if that is your starting point, it means yourfocus is not national issues - it means you are globally orientedand want to go for the best. This means that Europe must get itsact together. I see an encouraging sign there that nuts and boltssupport for European research policy is becoming the norm, thinkingEuropean is becoming accepted as the way to do good research,and thinking of a European research career is becoming morecommon.

Do you think that is a recent shift that has happened inthe past few years?

I think it is an unproven spin-off of Erasmus and of the fact thatpeople no longer do their research in their laboratory. They go tointernational conferences, make things globally and follow theinternational literature. The research world has become a globallyoperating worldI think it is a really important effect of mobility and of Erasmus andthe international modus operandi of research, in particular if youthink excellence. Excellence is not determined by boundaries.

What do you think are the most pressing emergingissues or problems in the EU that are insufficientlyaddressed by current research topics?

Four topics: ageing; resource efficiency; mobility; globalcompetitiveness. First, ageing has led to demographic tensions,which is a big issue. Secondly, resource efficiency is linked toclimate change and C02 emissions. Third, mobility – via advancedcommunications technology – to reduce the use of cars andairplanes. Fourth, global competitiveness and what it means forlabour policy and commercial policy, etc.I think these are essential for our European future and Europeanmodel.

Do you think these are being addressed by policyefficiently as well?

We have clear signs that the new Commissioner really wants toredirect our research policy to tackle these grand challenges. This isthe right thing to do.

Could you share with us other insights that you mayhave regarding future resource, taking into accountthe ERA vision and grand challenges?

This is part of our first report to be published from our thinktank,which is called EROP. I think that we have to work for a newRenaissance. The Renaissance was a way to get out of the MiddleAges and go into industrial society. In order to get there, thingshad to be done differently. To do that we had the Enlightenment,which was science and rationality guiding the new way for theworld to go. That happened in the 15th and 17th centuries and wehave something similar here. We have enormous challenges whichoblige us to rethink the way we do things to create growth, but in adifferent way to attack climate change and ageing.My personal view is that for a new Renaissance we are now facingthe challenge of reinventing our society with science and technology.This being said, the big challenge for science and technology in thefuture is ethics. The boundaries are not material ones, not the limitsof our thinking, the boundaries are ethical. How far can we go withpersonalised medicine or sensors to measure C02 everywhere?How far can you go with that, without feeling you are constantlymonitored by some sort of “Google map”? So I think the ethicalissues are the key issues for the future and whether there is awild card which might have a deep effect. In principle, people arewilling to accept a lot of science and technology if it helps themin their lives, but what if it goes wrong? In this case it might havean enormous backlash, which will catapult us back 50 years. Abacklash against science, technology and innovation might be astrong and important wild card.

Is there anything you would like to add, or anything weare doing or not doing?

iKnow should find ways of keep people informed about these sort ofissues (i.e. wild cards and weak signals).