UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT
k0bf307feMT
k0bf307feMT
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>UNESCO</strong> <strong>SCIENCE</strong> <strong>REPORT</strong><br />
polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), which is leading<br />
one of the two flagship projects 10 of the Future and Emerging<br />
Technologies Programme, the Human Brain Project, which<br />
seeks to deepen our understanding of how the brain functions.<br />
So far, so good, you might say, but the Sword of Damocles is<br />
hanging over the Swiss government. The current agreement<br />
is limited in time and will expire in December 2016. If<br />
Switzerland doesn’t come up with an immigration policy in<br />
accord with the principle of the free movement of persons<br />
by then, it will lose its status as a fully associated member<br />
of Horizon 2020 and retain the status of a third party in<br />
Erasmus+. Should that happen, even though it won’t affect<br />
Swiss engagement in Europe (such as CERN) beyond EU<br />
projects, Switzerland will still become a very lonely wolf in<br />
Europe’s S&T landscape.<br />
10. The other flagship project is developing the new materials of the future, such<br />
as graphene.<br />
Disappointing economic growth could affect R&D targets<br />
Remaining part of the European Research Area is crucial but<br />
it is not the only challenge Switzerland faces, if it wishes to<br />
stay in the lead. The country will also need to maintain the<br />
current heady levels of R&D spending. In the financial plan<br />
for 2013–2016, education, research and innovation all enjoy<br />
exceptionally high annual growth rates in the range of 4%.<br />
However, that was before the Swiss franc gained so much<br />
value against the euro in January 2015, undermining exports<br />
and tourism. Targets that looked like a piece of cake in early<br />
2015 have become a gamble: as in Norway, albeit for different<br />
reasons, economic growth is in trouble; since growth is a<br />
prerequisite for higher public spending, R&D, like many other<br />
policy areas, may suffer.<br />
Overdependent on a handful of multinationals<br />
Another bottleneck is the recruitment of highly qualified R&D<br />
personnel. In just three years, Switzerland dropped from 14th<br />
to 24th position in the WEF Global Competitiveness Report<br />
Box 11.2: A vote on immigration ricochets on Swiss science<br />
Assessing public attitudes to science<br />
and technology from informal opinion<br />
polls is one thing, making decisions<br />
on scientific topics through legally<br />
binding referenda is quite another.<br />
Popular referenda are part of the<br />
political routine in Switzerland’s direct<br />
democracy. The Swiss vote on literally<br />
everything, from new opening hours<br />
for retail stores and bonus ceilings for<br />
top managers to multinational treaties.<br />
Now and then, they also vote on<br />
science and technology.<br />
If one eliminates the many votes<br />
in which attitudes to specific<br />
technologies were not necessarily the<br />
main argument for a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ vote,<br />
such as on issues related to nuclear<br />
energy, there have been four referenda<br />
at the federal level in the past 20<br />
years on legal provisions that would<br />
severely restrict research; each of these<br />
referenda has asked citizens to vote on<br />
a highly complex issue, questioning<br />
vivisection, stem cells, genetic<br />
modification of agricultural products<br />
and reproductive technologies. Is<br />
there a voting pattern? Yes, clearly<br />
so. In each of these four referenda, the<br />
great majority voted against measures<br />
that would have restricted or hindered<br />
scientific research.<br />
Considering the very positive attitude<br />
of the Swiss towards science and<br />
technology, why then, in 1992, did they<br />
vote against the Agreement on the<br />
European Economic Area, which would<br />
have automatically given them access to<br />
the European Research Area? Even more<br />
critically, why did they vote in favour of<br />
an initiative in February 2014 limiting the<br />
number of immigrants to Switzerland<br />
that severely endangers the country’s<br />
co-operation with the EU in science and<br />
technology? One in four Swiss residents<br />
was born abroad and about 80 000<br />
immigrants move to Switzerland each<br />
year, most of whom are EU citizens.<br />
There were two main reasons for the<br />
rejection. The first is evident: in both<br />
cases, science and technology were just<br />
one part of the package and, as shown<br />
in post-voting polls, the fact that voting<br />
against one of the four principles of the<br />
EU – the free movement of persons –<br />
would also weaken Swiss science was<br />
either not understood by voters or<br />
judged less important than other<br />
considerations.<br />
This, of course, leads directly to the<br />
second reason. The Swiss political<br />
elite, who favoured the European<br />
Economic Area agreement and were<br />
opposed to strict immigration controls,<br />
missed an opportunity to put science<br />
and technology on the campaign<br />
agenda. Would it have changed<br />
the outcome? Yes, probably, since<br />
the outcome of both referenda was<br />
extremely tight. The initiative ‘against<br />
massive immigration’ in February<br />
2014 was adopted by 1 463 854 votes<br />
to 1 444 552. Had the heads of Swiss<br />
universities and other important actors<br />
of the Swiss science scene thought to<br />
pen a couple of enlightening articles in<br />
major newspapers in the weeks prior<br />
to the referendum highlighting the<br />
potential cost of a ‘yes’ vote in terms<br />
of the loss of access to EU research<br />
and student exchanges (Erasmus), this<br />
would most likely have turned the<br />
outcome around.<br />
Source: compiled by author<br />
308