“Research findings don’t simply flow from a tap”

“Many people yearn to understand things that are far removed from their everyday world”, says the emeritus professor Helga Nowotny, a philosopher of science. | Photo: Mafalda Rakoš

Helga Nowotny, every year, the ERC distributes over two billion euros to more than 2,600 basic research projects. What’s special about them?

Unlike the EU’s other research funding programmes, the ERC’s primary focus is on the researchers themselves and their projects. There are no thematic requirements. Applications simply have to fulfil the criteria of scientific excellence, nothing else. In other words, they have to develop an original idea or method, or apply one to new research questions. But this doesn’t mean that anything goes. What constitutes excellence is assessed by panels that are staffed with leading scientists, and it’s all done according to rules that are fair and transparent.

Would it still be possible today to create such an all-encompassing funding programme for basic research?

Many people regard the creation of the ERC as well-nigh miraculous. I couldn’t imagine any such ambitious project ever coming to fruition today. Back then, in 2004, negotiations were just entering the final stage for the upcoming, seven-year EU Framework Programme for Research. We had a tight timeframe. The European Commission wasn’t really aware of just how radical it was to entrust the strategic direction of its funding programme to a council of 22 independent academics. But in the years since 2007 when it was established, the ERC has become the Commission’s undisputed success story. If the ERC didn’t exist, you’d have to invent it.

So what actually led to the decision to create the ERC?

Politicians weren’t interested in the research community’s long-held desire to promote basic research. At a European level, applied research was being supported exclusively. That only changed when several Nordic countries realised that funding had stagnated for universities, which were the main centres for basic research, while China was catching up rapidly. They were worried that, in the long-term, Europe might fall behind its international competition. But there was resistance right up to the end from Germany and the UK. The representatives of both those countries were convinced that whatever people did in Brussels, it could never be as good as what they were themselves doing at home.

More and more people are questioning whether researchers should be allowed to determine both thematic priorities and the appropriate assessment criteria. In the USA, climate and gender research are coming under attack. In Europe, military research is now prioritised. And in Switzerland, the SNSF is facing budget cuts. What’s your view on all this?

Every national budget is founded on political decisions and priorities. Regrettably, research tends to end up at the bottom of the list. It’s always possible that the findings from basic research might prove useful for military purposes. But funding for military research and funding for basic research ought to remain separate. I would deeply regret any shift in funding that was detrimental to the latter.

A professor once told me, in confidence, that half of all research is bad anyway, and could be scrapped without any consequences.

I don’t see it like that at all. Research findings don’t just flow from a tap that you can turn on and off at will. A 50-percent cut in funding would have dire consequences. Don’t forget, we have to keep training young people for research on an ongoing basis. That takes years. What’s more, basic research is subject to international competition.

Couldn’t we leave basic research to the private sector and private patronage?

No, that would destroy public trust in science – and for a long time, too. Whether rightly or wrongly, people would be suspicious that anything funded by the private sector would be exclusively driven by a desire for profit. And private patrons can withdraw their funding at any time without having to explain why.

So what would an ideal research funding system look like?

Switzerland is very well positioned because the Swiss state funds basic research and leaves it to the private sector to fund the development of applications. So you have very well-trained university graduates who can go into industry and put their knowledge into practice. The path from basic research to application and implementation is therefore shorter than it is in other countries.

What percentage of a country’s GDP should be devoted to basic research?

Countries whose total expenditure on research and development is less than one percent of GDP simply can’t keep up in basic research. We can see that in many EU member states from Eastern Europe. The EU aims to achieve three percent. Some countries, like Austria, spend even more. But it’s impossible to determine exactly how much of that money flows into basic research.

How are you going to explain to your fellow citizens that their hard-earned tax money should be invested in researching mediaeval string instruments or negatively curved mathematical spaces?

Many people yearn to understand things that are far removed from their everyday world. They are fascinated by science and scholarship, and it’s up to us as researchers to cater for this curiosity in an appropriate manner.

If you were a rich patron, what research topics would you fund as your main priority?

I would invest my money in a research field that’s only now emerging: tackling social science questions using AI and mathematical, quantitative methods. There are projects examining the labour market, the healthcare system, the energy supply, supply chains and cross-border mobility. I’m even confident that we’ll soon be witnessing developments comparable to those that stemmed from physicists discovering the life sciences in the mid-20th century. When they did, many of them moved into those areas back then. Together with the introduction of new instruments, such as the electron microscope, it led to an enormous boom in molecular biology.

Turning to society as a whole, what topics ought to be our research priorities?

I tend to be sceptical about this notion of policy-driven research priorities. There are undoubtedly issues that are of socio-political importance – e.g., health, climate change and, above all, the capacity for innovation. But it’s not enough just to set the agenda. Of course research can investigate socio-political problems and try to offer solutions. But implementing them involves more than just research findings. You need the political will and the courage to intervene and tackle structural reforms.

Do you even find the concept of ‘basic research’ itself meaningful?

Absolutely! But this has got nothing to do with any distinction between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ research, which are outdated categories. Basic research is intended to achieve something – to bring about a benefit for society – without your knowing in advance just what form it’s going to take, or how you’re going to achieve it.

You’ve experienced many upheavals in research policy over the course of your long career. Was there anything that made a particular impression on you?

It’s disheartening to see how young researchers are coming under more and more pressure all the time. They’re expected to publish quicker and quicker, preferably in high-impact journals, and they’re forced to focus solely on their next steps on the career ladder.

What advice would you give to scientists who are today in leading positions in our research institutions?

They should engage intensively with the possible impact of AI on teaching and research. It seems to me that people feel a great sense of powerlessness in how to tackle the immense challenges that it’s bringing. We need spaces where researchers can share their experiences of using it. We have to devise new organisational structures and create a new ethos for dealing with AI, and we have to decide how we want to conduct research in the future.