In his opening address to the EASST Conference in Lisbon, 1 October 1998, Dr. Jose Mariano Gago, Minister for Science and Technology, started by outlining the political playing field that he would like the EASST community to engage in: the science and technology policy of the European Union. Among the political domains that European policy-making covers at present, science and technology policy is a relatively new domain. European science and technology policy has up till now been limited to areas of research linked to goals like industrial competetiveness. This means that even recently, an intended programme of health research had to be shown to be of importance to industrial competetiveness first, before it could be funded under European programming. Present day science and technology policy of the European Union can therefore be said to be still in its infancy, when compared to the far more comprehensive science and technology policies of the individual member states.

This immaturity of European science and technology policy is however not exceptional, for at the moment there is no mature European policy yet in any political domain, with the single exception of the current European monetary policy towards a joint single currency, the Euro. If that particular policy succeeds - and the minister added he sincerely hopes it does - the next political debate within the European Union will be about European institutions; about the general institutional arrangements needed for mature governance at the European level, and about the more detailed institutional arrangements needed for specific policy domains like a more comprehensive European science and technology policy.

It was at this point in his speech that Minister Gago challenged his audience to engage in the upcoming political debate about the future institutions of European science and technology policy. While doing so, he stressed the importance of timing in this respect, and pointed to the unique window of opportunity opening over this issue somewhere during the next decade. During this short period, before political decision-making solidifies, it will be possible to influence the construction of institutional arrangements that may last for the rest of the coming century, and that will shape the future character of science in Europe. Minister Gago pointed out that it is very much down to communities like the EASST community gathered here in front of him today to shape the intellectual preconditions for the upcoming political debate about the future of European science and technology policy. We should realize that at the moment such intellectual preconditions are seriously lacking within the responsible political and administrative settings. If the political debate took place next year, European politicians and policy-makers would simply not be prepared for it. What we may then expect to happen is that, pressed for time and intellectual input, a set of seemingly appropriate nation state level institutions will be copied, like those of the United States of America.

The minister would therefore strongly welcome studies that would help to create the intellectual preconditions he thinks are needed for the upcoming political debate about the future of science and technology policy in Europe. Such studies would for instance include an evaluation of the successes and shortcomings of nation state level institutions for science and technology policy, and an analysis of their (un-) suitedness for the European situation. Without such critical analysis soon, we are very likely to end up with the default thing to do: just copying the United States institutional arrangements in this respect. Another example of what could be investigated by science studies in this respect is the failed attempt at establishing an Academia Europea about 15 years ago. Why did this attempt fail? Also worthy of our analysis is the decision-making proces surrounding the formulation of the 5th Framework Programme over the last year or two. Judging from his own experiences during the process he would say this is a subject very much in need of a social study of science - to which he will gladly cooperate by supplying his own recollections. He would say that the relatively ill-prepared and ad hoc policy-making that he found typical of the decision-making surrounding the 5th Framework Programme would be inconceivable for a comparable policy-making effort at the national member state level.

An additional reason why science studies would be very welcome to contribute to the political debate about the future of European science and technology policy is that the institutional memory of the administrators involved tends to be very short. For instance: when the European Council of science and technology ministers will meet in October this year, he will be the oldest minister in office within that domain, being himself now three years in office. Under these circumstances, academic analysis can help to provide a more long term perspective, and contribute to European institutional memory and learning.

Minister Gago then went on to point out a number of implicit features of European science and technology policy that he would like to see questioned and challenged. One of these features is the marginal role allocated to the social sciences within the current European Framework Programmes. When it comes to giving credit to the social sciences, he has to say there is a marked lack of culture in most of his fellow-representatives within the Council. Likewise, most administrative policy-makers within the domain seem to be under-educated in this respect. Besides, most ministers still tend to be guided by their national interests. And national interests of European memberstates only rarely include the social sciences. For a long time it therefore seemed there would be sadly little social science included within the 5th Framework Programme; although the present result is not as bad as it at one stage threatened to be. While campaigning for a more explicit role for the social sciences in the 5th Framework Programme himself, minister Gago noticed that one particular argument kept being used against him during debate. This is the argument that “of course social science is crucially important, but it is oldfashioned to give it its own Key Action within the Programme. Instead social science aspects will be integrated into all Key Actions”. This line of argument - and the related development in programming - might deserve our critical scrutiny as well.

One might wonder at this point why there should be so much sympathy in Portugal for the role of the social sciences, especially among members of Gago’s own generation. The answer is because the social sciences, with two exceptions, where forbidden during his years of training as a student, under fascism in Portugal. The two social sciences allowed to be studied were geography and anthropology, because they could serve the national interests in the colonies. But sociology was regarded as dangerous. Although he was himself trained as a physicist, Gago has for this reason remained committed to the importance of social science as a source of freedom ever since.

A second feature of European science and technology policy that minister Gago would like to see challenged is the possible trend towards concentrated and highly specialized research centres. Without explicit political debate, this might be the implicit course that European science and technology policy is heading for. At the moment, all research-related industry in Europe is concentrated in the central parts of Europe, even if it was destroyed at those locations several times this century. If future European science and technology policy continues to be as strongly industry oriented as it is today, part of that future policy could be a withdrawl of science and technology investment from peripheral countries, to concentrate European research expertise at the industrial production centres of Europe.

The question one could ask is: why do small and peripheral countries like Portugal need - training in - science and technology? In case of Portugal the answer to this question is not to provide a research-base for domestic industry, but to provide the country with good teaching, health care and civil engineering. So a totally different answer than in say the case of Germany or Sweden. A future European policy that would seek to concentrate its science and technology investment in a limited number of locations will deprive the mayority of Europe of a balanced access to science. Under such a regime of specialization, Portugal would have to concentrate on something like biomedical science, while for instance Portugese mathematicians would have to migrate to centres of excellence elsewhere in Europe. In this matter too, the minister would very much like the STS community in Europe to express its views; for in the end the choice for a future European science and technology policy is about the social consequences of the variety of sciences available in a certain country or region.

As a final point of consideration, Gago pointed out that we should realize that many countries in Latin America and Africa are looking especially to Europe for ideas and models in these matters. To countries in Latin America and Africa, Europe is a haven of democracy and wealth. Indeed, from our position of peace and wealth it is more easy to think about these problems in a balanced way. For in a country in poverty and turmoil it may be more tempting to abandon science policy for guerrilla warfare.

Speaking from this same global perspective, the minister ended his adress by admitting his worries over the recent trend towards relativism in European science studies. According to such relativist views, science and “truth” should be seen as constructs, stemming from the self-interest of scientists. We should keep in mind, the minster said, that such relativism undermines the positive role of science and technology as a source of freedom, citizenship, and a test of reality.

author’s address: dresen@chem.uva.nl