Alexander Rinnooy Kan and Beatrice de Graaf finished their work as presidents of the National Research Agenda (Nationale Wetenschaps Agenda) of the Netherlands in January 2016. This agenda determines the direction of scientific research in the Netherlands. Neth-ER asked Mr. Rinnooy Kan about the unique and innovative way this agenda was designed and how he thinks this national agenda should be linked to European research developments.
Q: Congratulations with the presentation of the first National Research Agenda of the Netherlands last November. The process by which this agenda came to be and the reasons why the Dutch Government chose this method are rather innovative. Could you explain why you chose this particular method and which opportunities this agenda can bring about for the Netherlands?
A: In addition to scientists and the government, companies, civil society organisations and interested citizens participated in determining the Dutch National Research Agenda. We wanted to try out a new, bottom up approach, in which the building blocks for the agenda would consist of questions that everyone would be able to submit, the researchers themselves included of course. We received more than 11.0000 questions and in order to structure the agenda we clustered them into 140 items that defined the agenda. These questions and theme’s will give focus to Dutch research in the years to come. We hope that this method produces a broad sense of ownership, which is necessary for a National Research Agenda.
In my opinion there was a right balance between the available response time and the amount of questions received. I do not think that more or different themes would have been formed if we had given the Dutch stakeholders more time. Moreover, given our tight planning it would have been impossible for us to process far more questions than the 11.000 we already received.
Organisations affiliated to the Dutch knowledge coalition drew up the Dutch National Research Agenda based on the input we received. To realise this, they formed a Steering Group chaired by Beatrice de Graaf, professor of Utrecht University, and me. The knowledge coalition is made up of universities, universities of applied sciences, university medical centres, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers, Royal Association MKB Nederland, and Federation TO2 (the institutes for applied research).
I think the method we used generated the desired ownership by the whole society. The knowledge coalition has taken the lead of the agenda and drafted 16 sample routes as guidance for the reader. A route is a collection of coherent questions around a complex theme. With these questions researchers have the opportunity to look for the best approach to tackle this complex theme, to link the theoretical and practical context, and to connect the most obvious parties of the knowledge coalition and their constituencies.
Q: The National Research Agenda links almost naturally to the European Grand Challenges of Horizon 2020. Were you surprised with this outcome and what is your vision on a European follow-up?
A: The questions we received demonstrated that the choice for the six Grand Societal Challenges in 2009 during the Swedish Presidency, is in line with what the Dutch citizens have in mind in in 2015. So the link to the European research programme Horizon 2020 was a very logical one.
I do hope that other European countries are willing to create their own version of this approach, enabling interesting transnational comparisons. It might be possible, for instance, that in certain Member States some of the Grand Societal Challenges are less important than other more regional challenges. If many other Member States follow our lead, a European agenda could be developed that covers the overlapping themes.
Q: Many argue that the ability of scientists to do research, driven purely out of curiosity, is important. Scientists should be able to work independent from the public debate. Yet, there is also a call for a greater accountability of science to citizens. Among other things, the Dutch National Research Agenda tries to achieve the latter.
A: Initially, that was certainly our goal. However, citizen involvement is perfectly compatible with full autonomy for unfettered research and with a healthy climate for broad R&D collaboration.
The biggest bottle neck I perceived was the interaction with Dutch politicians. Some had very distinctive ideas about the outcomes of our consultation. It was our task to let the process be a real bottom up process. I think we succeeded in this.
Q: The Netherlands is still not an ‘Innovation Leader’ according to the Innovation Union Scoreboard. What do you think is necessary for the Netherlands to achieve a better innovation climate and take steps on the innovation ladder? After all, you were a member of the first Netherlands Innovation Platform set up to take the Netherlands into the international top five in research, education and innovation.
A: The two main weaknesses of the Netherlands are systematic public and private underfunding of R&D, and insufficient innovation on the SME level. In my maiden speech in the Dutch Senate, I emphasised the importance of sustainable investments for economic growth. I compared prolonged stagnation of economic growth in Europe with ‘Japanisation’: the situation of prolonged stagnation when sustainable growth is not stimulated. Recently on a European level, the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) was launched to increase investments in the European economy by enabling high risk loans. I am delighted to see Europe take the lead with this kind of innovative initiatives and I have high hopes for successful Dutch efforts in EFSI.
The primary challenge for the Netherlands is to secure the resources required. We have demonstrated our ability to organise a proper mix of activities, e.g. in Eindhoven with Brainport. Brainport is a very successful development with the right climate, requirements and resources available. There is a strong industry (Philips), a regional government with willingness to invest money, and an enthusiastic regional board members and directors. Of course you need some luck, but with the right ingredients you are more than half way there. I see in Europe an increase of decentralisation in the administrative culture. To develop initiatives like Brainport such a decentralisation is important.
A culture of entrepreneurship is also very important for a healthy R&D climate. If we want to make a difference globally, I think we should implement entrepreneurship with much more force for instance in the curricula of schools and universities. Also an initiative like the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) helps to create an entrepreneurial climate, but I think much more attention is needed.
Q: As you know, the Netherlands holds the presidency of the EU this first half of 2016. What do you hope the Netherlands will achieve in Research & Innovation and Education in 2016 on a European level?
A: First and foremost, our efforts should be consistent with our official goal to become a Top 5 knowledge economy.
More information:
Website: Dutch National Research Agenda
Publication: Wetenschapsvisie 2025: keuzes voor de toekomst
Website: Eerste Kamer, Impressie Algemene Financiële Beschouwingen 2015
Publication: Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015
