| Popis: |
The paper aims at de-structuring the concept of Innovation Union, finding evidences of some cognitive constituents, coming from the past, about European future within science policy in the making. To this aim the paper focuses on science policy at EU Framework Programme level, with particular attention to Horizon 2020, trying to bring out the tacit cultural background. The FPs establishing documents are very relevant, because they communicate EU’s vision of European future scientific landscape while at the same time they are the main instrument to build it. Lisbon European Council declared that the Union’s “strategic goal” for the following decade was “to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledgebased economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.”(European Council, 2000). Since its foundation, and coherently with the previous decade European policy orientation, the Lisbon Strategy showed a balanced mix of social and economic aims: on one side it pursued the strengthening the new-born (with the Maastricht Treaty, in 1992) political Union with measures of social inclusion and reinforcement of the coordination among national policies and networking of knowledge-producing actors; on the other side, it asked for a boost in competitiveness of the European private sector as a mean to sustain economic growth. In the following decade, however, this mix has lost its balance in favour of economic growth-related objectives and shifting its main goal from making of Europe a “knowledge society” to building an “Innovation Union”. The analysis of the most relevant official documents and declarations on scientific policy produced by European policy-making bodies shows clearly an evolution towards an overbalance in favour of the short term “fixing” of European problems (the so-called “societal challenges”), with abiding reduced space for an inclusive debate on the agenda setting. In 2002, for example, the establishing act of the Sixth Framework Programme pointed out as its main areas of activity “Focusing and Integrating Community Research”, “Structuring the European Research Area” and “Strengthening the Foundations of the European Research Area” (European Parliament and Council, 2002), while the priorities of Horizon 2020, launched in 2014, are “Excellent Science”, “Industrial Leadership” and “Societal Challenges”(European Parliament and Council, 2013). Moreover, while in 2002 a whole line of research was devoted to the study of “Citizens and governance in a knowledge-based society”, meant to mobilise European researchers in the economic, political, social sciences and the humanities to study the issues related to the knowledge-based society and the citizens-institutions interplay in the new landscape , in 2014 the aim of the “specific objective Science with and for Society” is defined as “to build effective cooperation between science and society, to recruit new talent for science and to pair scientific excellence with social awareness and responsibility”. Coherently, Horizon 2020 communication focuses on the reduction of the time for ideas to go “from lab to the market” and on improving the quality of life through boosting the economy; knowledge-based society is declined in a utilitarian way: “knowledge is a currency: the trick is to make it work for you” (“Horizon 2020 video - General overview - European Commission”) and the pre-determined social challenges are defined as “real things”, presumably in contrast with some abstract speculations financed in the preceding Programmes. Evidences are highlighted of over-emphasis on technological application, problem solving, quantifiable deliverables and dissemination at expenses of basic research, social sciences, problem setting, open citizen participation and science communication. A time-shrink is patent, traces of a linear and deterministic concept about innovation are present, a sort of anti-intellectualism is intuitable, a turn-around from governance to some form of government (technocracy?), as far as science policy is concerned, can be understood. Some sociological conceptualizations can be used to better frame the subject and its roots in the past, e.g., sociological imagination (Charles W. Mills), quantophrenia (Pitirim Sorokin), homo clausus (Norbert Elias), narcissism (Christopher Lasch), medicalisation (Franck Furedi). The cultural background that seems to frame actual EU science policies, among others (e.g., mainstream science evaluation both in research and in education), lets us giving some hint to answer the question: how are we thinking our future? Bibliography European Parliament and Council (2002), Decision No 1513/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 concerning the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006), Official Journal of the European Communities, L232/29.08.2002. European Council (2000). Lisbon European Council 23-24.03.2000: Conclusions of the Presidency. European Parliament and Council (2013). Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) and repealing Decision No 1982/2006/EC, Official Journal of the European Communities, L 347/20.12.2013. Horizon 2020 video - General overview - European Commission. Retrieved March 25, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/horizon-2020-video-general-overview. *Acknowledgement: one of the authors (RG) acknowledges that part of this project has been supported by a Marie Curie Early Initial Training Network of the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under contract number (PITN-GA-2011-289355-PicoSEC-MCNet). The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Network and/or of the European Commission. |
