Address by Alexander Rinnooy Kan, President SER (Social and Economic Council), at the STW (Platform of Technology Foundation) Annual Congress
Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, 6 October 2011
Check against delivery.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I am delighted to be addressing you today as you celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of your foundation. The valorisation of science, bringing the demands of society and the pursuit of science together for the benefit of all, is difficult, but also inspiring and rewarding!
Three historical examples of the valorisation of science The Netherlands has a great scientific tradition. But we also have a long tradition of valorisation. The STW adopted Simon Stevin – who was born in the sixteenth century – as its inspiring icon. No doubt an excellent choice. But in the Golden Age, several of his fellow countrymen were also very inspiring and active practitioners of enabling technologies.
The sawmill, for instance, was invented in Holland and is considered one of the pillars of the Dutch Golden Age. In 1594, Cornelis Corneliszoon (his nickname was Krelis Lootjes) built his first sawmill. A century later, there were nine hundred sawmills operating in the region north of Amsterdam. This invention made it possible to construct an impressive fleet of ships and to become a world power.
My second example followed three decades later and concerns another Cornelis: Cornelis Drebbel. He constructed the first submarine in 1624. King James I of England financed this project, and he was among the first to make a trip in this mysterious ship. Thousands of Londoners would follow.
My third example concerns Professor Sibrandus Stratingh from Groningen University. In the age of the Toyota Prius and its successors, it is hard to believe that a Dutch professor of technology and chemistry constructed the first electric car in 1835, almost 180 years ago. He also made cars that ran on steam.
The early days of the STW Let’s travel back in time again. We are in the 1980s, the early days of the STW. At that time, the economy of the Netherlands was in trouble. There was also considerable room for improvement in science.
The pursuit of science was restricted largely to the familiar Ivory Towers. At the time, I worked at Erasmus University in Rotterdam. Along with a group of others, I dedicated myself to making Dutch universities more competitive. In our definition, a competitive university was “not a university controlled by business, but a university in which staff and students are encouraged to be enterprising”. I am quoting from a volume on competitive universities that we published in 1987.
By now, there is considerable consensus regarding what higher education should do, and today’s ideas closely resemble that definition. Indeed, in its Strategic Agenda for Higher Education, Research and Science, the present Government takes the innovative concepts of the late 1980s as self-evident.
In our book, we described the university of the future as a place that aims to deliver excellence in education and research and to turn out outstanding graduates. In order to do this, we argued, the university has to make choices and set priorities concerning the disciplines in which it wishes to excel, the students it wishes to teach, and the methods it will use to teach them. These choices and priorities would give every university a unique identity. The university funding system should offer the necessary incentives for such diversification and promote the efficient expenditure of public funds.
A concern for excellence, a unique identity, a focus on quality, and cooperation with businesses: these are also what the present Government has identified as the crucial features of the university. Today, the focus on quality has become even more urgent, for several reasons. The Netherlands is slipping downwards in a number of international rankings of higher education performance, and that is not a good sign for a country that aims to be one of the top five knowledge economies in the world.
But there are differences between the ideas of the past and the policy proposals of today. For example, we saw coordination and cooperation between universities as a possibility. Today, it has become a necessity. It is a necessity because we cannot afford to lose the competition for top academic talent, either within Europe or on a world scale, if we aim to be among the world’s best in specific areas of research. The three Dutch universities of technology have been in the vanguard in that respect.
We also placed less emphasis on the need to valorise scientific research. Back in 1987, we wrote that a competitive university must be able to accommodate applied research and play an advisory role within society. It should take seriously any requests for assistance in research by the community.
Today, twenty-five years later, we are well aware that the economy cannot grow without research findings. There has been a shift in the relationship between science and society from “service” to “necessity”. Valorisation – in other words, effectively converting acquired knowledge into economic or socially relevant activity – became one of the core responsibilities of universities in 2004. Starting in 2016, the Dutch Government wishes to earmark at least 2.5 per cent of public research funding for knowledge valorisation.
STW and the Innovation Platform This brings me to the important role that the STW has been playing for thirty years. My description of how we thought about science and how our ideas were applied in the 1980s illustrates the necessity of setting up the foundation in 1981. Since that year, the STW has managed, despite its relatively small budget, to play a key role at the interface of science and valorisation. A glance at its website and current programmes shows that the STW is tackling its role with enormous energy. And it will continue to carry out important work in the future.
I say this in the knowledge that the Innovation Platform has ceased to exist. The role of the IP was naturally very different from that of the STW. The two complemented one another. The IP, like the STW, focused on the broad application of knowledge and scientific insights, the purpose being to increase the level of social wellbeing. The IP focused on the entire knowledge sector, from pre-school to university, and from fundamental to applied research. We brought all of this into focus in the IP’s Knowledge Investment Agenda or KIA. Our message was clear: the Netherlands is not investing enough in education, research and knowledge valorisation.
2011: cause for concern
Today, that message is more relevant than ever. Indeed, there is cause for concern.
To begin with, no extra funding has been earmarked for research, contrary to what the Social and Economic Council and the KIA have advised. Indeed, government will be cutting back on its investment in R&D: according to the Rathenau Institute, from 0.84 per cent of GDP in 2009 to 0.68 per cent in 2015. That puts the Netherlands behind a considerable number of other EU and OECD countries, including Finland, Austria, the USA, and Korea.
Far from there being more money for research in the years ahead, then, there will in fact be less. Starting in 2015, the Netherlands’ natural gas revenues, funding allocated from the FES or Economic Structure Enhancement Fund, and innovation funding provided through the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation will no longer be available for Dutch scientific research. That means that between 2011 and 2015, research funding will drop by approximately 500 million euros a year. Most of this money has been used to create research places for PhD candidates, post-docs and young scientists. According to the Association of Universities in the Netherlands or VSNU, thirty per cent of these positions will therefore have disappeared by 2015.
In addition to these economy measures, existing research funding will also be reallocated. A considerable share of the funding that was formerly available for open-ended research has now been reallocated to priorities designated by the Government.
Pivotal position of key economic sectors in policy At the moment, most of the focus is naturally on the Government’s plans for the business sector. There has been plenty of discussion concerning the current Government’s emphasis on key economic sectors. Like any other self-respecting Government, this one has also set the bar high: the Dutch economy must be among the world’s best. And that's fine – it takes ambition to drive peak performance. But is it realistic to think that we can be among the best in the world?
It is doubtful whether that will happen in all of the key economic sectors. It might be going a bit too far to expect to have ten different sectors at the top of the world rankings. The Government’s new plans for the business sector follow on from the Leading Industries Policy initiated by the Innovation Platform and launched by our previous prime minister. Under that policy, government and stakeholders collaborated in networks, developed roadmaps, and drew up innovation programmes. That is no different in the current Key Economic Sectors approach.
An interim evaluation carried out under the chairmanship of Ad Scheepbouwer in 2009 revealed that the ability to self-organise is an important requirement for a successful leading industry. The creative industry in particular had made too little progress in this respect. Another conclusion was that innovation required a lengthy period of incubation. The status of a leading industry therefore needed to be measured at eight-year intervals, with a possible extension for a further four years.
It is against this background that I would like to appeal to the decision-makers in the key economic sectors to take as much as they can from the work carried out under the Leading Industries policy when developing their roadmaps. Many sectors in fact already have roadmaps. It would be a pity to lose all the knowledge and experience gained. We want continuity in policy-making, so I would advise you to make use of that knowledge and experience!
No displacement
I am all for giving applied research more leeway, but it must not lead to displacement. In other words, applied research should not be at the expense of fundamental research.
Fortunately, representatives of the nine key economic sectors have made it clear in a letter to the Minister of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation that they too recognise the importance of fundamental, curiosity-driven, unfettered research. But the question is: at what point will the budget for unfettered fundamental research reach a critical level? What amount is enough to support the “accidental discoveries” that propel science and society forward? The Dutch physicist André Geim is one of those who made such a discovery. Last year, he and his British colleague Konstantin Novoselov won the Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery of graphene.
The Social and Economic Council believes that the key economic sectors provide a good frame of reference for research. However, the Council also emphasises that science and research cover a broader field than these sectors alone, and that the level of innovation and competitiveness is also determined by results in the humanities and social sciences. That is a serious point of concern.
Social innovation should accompany technological innovation Despite the Government’s ambitions, the R&D intensity of the Dutch economy will be low-key for the time being. But even with low level of investment in R&D, there are plenty of opportunities for successful innovation. The key words in this context are social innovation. The past few years have taught us that technological innovation is impossible without social innovation. More effort must be made to integrate employee knowledge, experience and skills into business models. After all, technological knowledge will produce very little if it is not embedded in the organisation and its community. Companies that involve themselves in social innovation are demonstrably more innovative and productive and have a higher rate of turnover growth.
The Innovation Platform was also well aware of the need to boost innovativeness in the Netherlands through social innovation. It was my honour to become a member of the steering committee that drafted the advisory report for the IP in 2009, entitled
Slimmer werken werkt or, in English,
Working Smarter Works. Our conclusion was that although progress had already been made in the area of social innovation, much remained to be done. In particular, the SME sector stood to benefit enormously from any future advances. This is another lesson that we must not forget in the current key economic sectors policy.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am almost finished.
I have joined you in observing that the Netherlands has many fine scientists of whom it can be proud. The STW took Simon Stevin has its icon. I myself mentioned Cornelis Corneliszoon, Cornelis Drebbel and Sibrandus Stratingh. I also expressed my worry that the KIA had not been implemented as fully as it should have been. Despite my worries about the future, however, I remain optimistic. There are signs that give me hope as well.
For example, in June, Brainport Eindhoven was awarded the title of “Intelligent Community of the Year 2011”. Not Seoul, Tokyo or New York, but the Eindhoven region, one of four hundred different cities and regions to enter the competition. I see this award as recognition that business, knowledge institutions and government – the “triple helix” in southeast Netherlands – are cooperating effectively.
And a few weeks ago, it was announced that the Netherlands had once again risen in the global rankings of most competitive economies. Out of 142 countries ranked, the Netherlands has finally made it to the top ten. Now that the country is the seventh most competitive economy in the world, the Dutch Government’s aim of a place in the top five may indeed be within reach.
Finally, according to the 2011 Innovation Union Competitiveness Report by the European Commission, Dutch researchers are among the most productive in the world. “The Netherlands benefits from a high-quality scientific production, managing to score 17% of its publications among the top 10 % most cited publications worldwide. Moreover, the Netherlands has an economy with one of the highest patent intensities in the world and performs well in patents aimed at addressing societal challenges that can constitute potential sources of future economic growth.”
These words by the European Commission bring me back to the STW’s mission: to build a bridge between science and its valorisation. There is much work ahead. I would like to wish the STW – and everyone here, of course – many years in which to carry out its meaningful work for society.