A national research strategy
Seven academics argue the merits of investing in research and innovation as a means of boosting the country’s competitiveness, creating good jobs and reversing the brain drain
Research is the most important, if not the only source of innovation. Greece, a small country, has no other choice but to invest heavily in research if it wants to be competitive in the 21st century.
Quality, cutting-edge research is a source of profitable entrepreneurship, creating quality jobs that could halt the disastrous brain drain we have experienced in the past few years.
It is mistaken to believe that the only thing research needs to upgrade its international competitiveness is more funding. The main issue is the lack of a national research strategy, designed by acclaimed scientists. Research is absent from the national budget (beyond covering some operational and payroll costs); there is a lack of planning disconnected from temporary political gains; there is no body to coordinate and implement strategy. These are the main hurdles to real progress.
At this moment, however, we are at a crossroads. Greece must become seriously competitive in the fields where the foundation for an important presence in international research already exists. This is the only way to take advantage of applied research to develop smart entrepreneurship. Indeed, there is only one requirement to develop internationally competitive innovation in Greece: top-quality basic research.
Key problems
In our view, there are four main problems for research in Greece and they likely all point to the lack of a national research strategy.
First, funding is provided without a national strategic plan and it is very often not based on merit, without input from independent internationally renowned scientists with research experience.
Second, funding flows are neither consistent nor predictable.
Third, the few and usually limited funding sources are dispersed through a number of ministries besides those of Development and Education, the Hellenic Foundation for Research & Innovation (HFRI), the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESPA) and other sources with an almost total lack of coordination.
Fourth, there is crushing bureaucracy throughout the system and, added to that, there is an administrative division of research between universities and research centers of no usefulness at all.
Bureaucracy
The overwhelming bureaucracy at universities and research centers is the greatest obstacle to research, greater even than inadequate funding. The existing laws, provisions and regulations make for especially time-consuming processes that prevent research from reaching the necessary quality levels, highlighting an especially important reason why Greece can rarely be internationally competitive in research.
There are many things that must be corrected, but we believe that if some key provisions that truly undermine research activity are abolished, we will solve many problems, such as the obligation of universities and research centers to operate according to public accounting rules that are incompatible with current best research practices.
Funding strategy
Making the correct decision as to which are the most important research fields that need priority support and as to how to appropriate existing funds is a complex process with many variables that must be based on the input of people with experience and who are acknowledged quality researchers. Research policy in Greece, as well as funding, are piecemeal. It is almost self-evident that a way must be found to bundle the limited existing funds and disburse them in a rational manner.
Central body
In contrast to all advanced states, Greece does not have a central body to design a scientific research strategy and have the authority to disburse funds. The lack of such a body and of a rational, consistent state contribution results in uncoordinated, piecemeal, opaque, wasteful funding with no relation to merit that definitely does not help Greek research to be upgraded and reach international standards. To promote research at all levels and take advantage of its economic, educational and social benefits, it is necessary to create a national research body. There is no other way to steadily and sustainably fix the long-standing problems we face and to upgrade our research product.
We propose the creation of a National Research Agency that will draw discretionary powers now dispersed among several ministries, combine the existing funding sources, and which will be responsible for designing a national research strategy and defining its priorities. The agency will coordinate, fund and assess institutes and their research product and will help translational research, that is, the conversion of basic research results into outcomes of tangible benefit.
The agency will be the advisory body that will help the state implement strategies to optimize the research network and research quality. We believe that making the agency part of a new Research, Technology and Innovation Ministry will be optimal. It will set priorities for public funding and would coordinate funding to prevent dispersal and waste; it will provide an assessment of research activity (research institutes, universities, programs etc) and monitor funded projects.
A proposal
The disbursal of funds without a plan is a problem that prevents the country from reaping the benefits of an activity as important as research. If the existing funds were bundled and disbursed fairly, in a coordinated way, with transparency and on the basis of a strategic plan, they would cover many of the existing needs.
We believe that research must be part of the national budget, as is the case in all scientifically advanced countries, and that existing funding sources must be consolidated. The sources that must be included within the National Research Agency’s remit are:
• The part of the regular budget and the Public Investment Program that goes to research.
• The budget of the research centers funded from the budget, from all ministries.
• The HFRI budget, to fund bottom-up research in all fields.
• New funding from the national budget for long-term research projects.
• The ESPA budget and those of similar research-funding actions.
• The strategic research budgets of all ministries.
• Various European funding sources (such as Horizon) with matching national funds.
• Active fundraising from the private sector and foundations with reliable and meritocratic funding.
Management principles
The main management body of the NRA will be a board made up of 10-15 experienced and acclaimed scientists and well-known figures with administrative and business experience. It is inconceivable not to have the input of experienced scientists in designing the country’s research strategy. The main principle guiding the NRA executive will be independence from political influences and changes of government. Independence does not mean lack of accountability, however.
The board members should be appointed for a term of three to five years, not by the government but with the input of an independent advisory body. The terms should be staggered, that is the terms of, say, three members should expire each year and, eventually, the renewal should be made by the board itself.
The board will elect an executive director who must be a part of the research community, with a solid, internationally acclaimed body of work.
The board and the executive director will report annually to the relevant state officials (e.g. a minister or the Prime Minister’s Office). Only the approval of the NRA’s annual budget, and no other activity, will need a ministerial signature.
The NRA will manage and/or monitor the budgets of research centers across all ministries and not just the Ministry (or General Secretariat as is currently the case) of Research. A main feature of the agency will be the integration of research and the abolition of the distinction between research by research centers and by universities. Let us not forget that university education and research are inextricably tied.
The NRA will manage and fund intellectual property policy for research centers and universities, with innovation and enterpreneurship in mind. While the NRA’s main mission will be research, it cannot be divorced from innovation. There is a need for constant dialogue and interaction between the NRA and state and professional bodies that deal with and support innovation.
Finally, an important mission of such a centralized body will be to enable the necessary dialogue with the political leadership and society so that political decisions are informed by research-derived knowledge. This body will be a bridge between science and innovation and innovative enterprise, which is how things function in the 21st century.
Spyros Artavanis-Tsakonas is a professor emeritus of cell biology at Harvard University; Professor Angelos Chaniotis teaches ancient history and Classics at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University; Lefteris Economou is a professor emeritus of physics at the University of Crete; Christina Koulouri is a professor of history at Panteion University; Petros Koumoutsakos is professor of engineering and applied sciences and faculty director at Institute for Applied Computational Science (IACS) at Harvard University and a professor at ETH, Zurich; associate professor Zoi Lygerou teaches at Patras Medical School; and Stefanos Pesmazoglou is a professor of political theory at Panteion University.
