Modern science was born in Europe and as a Member of the European Parliament and as scientist I should be proud of it. Nevertheless I must be frank and perhaps shocking: dwelling on past glories serves little or no purpose, we have already lost our leadership and if we do not act quickly our standards may undergo further erosion. And if this happens the European Community would lose competitivity, prestige and move gradually but irreversibly toward Third World standards. The danger is real, we are already losing ground. At first sight European fundamental research appears to be in good health, the European centre for Nuclear research (CERN), based in Geneva is a leading and well run institution and it has scored a number of important results, among them the discovery of heavy light and is currently operating LEP, the world biggest electron-positron collider. The CERN is however a non-EC institution which includes as members not only EFTA states but also countries outside the EEA and was established well befo

re the Treaty of Rome. For reasons which are yet unclear and which are deeply rooted in our culture we are lacking an efficient information transfer mechanism from research institutions to the industry. My comments hold not only for pure research but for applied research as well. Europe is going through a very difficult and stressing economic crisis and recent events have shown how fragile and precarious is our unity. When in trouble the general tendency of industry, not only the European, is that of cutting research funds, and to pursue those activities only which promise quick returns and profits, to lean heavily on public contracts and funding, national and community as well, and to view them as a non so hidden form of economic support and assistance. In these conditions the temptation is strong to privatize profits and to socialize expenditures. Not all European institutions are tightly integrated at the highest level as it has been done for CERN since the very beginning under the leadership of Amaldi a

nd Scherrer. Existing standards in the European universities differ widely and this is an open invitation to a pervasive bureaucracy which places a heavy burden on any attempt toward harmonisation and communication. Decisional and assessment processes, both of researchers and of their results are at best imperfect. In some Member States, like Italy they are downright disastrous, chaotic and distorted by a well established unofficial network of local interests and by archaic university rules. Italian medicine has made headlines for the almost total lack and irrelevance of scientific standards in the decisional process, both in the universities and in the health system. The recent scandal created by a badly run national competition for a haematology professorship has produced a heated exchange of letters on the review "Nature". These ills are compounded by popular hostility against the scientific establishment. Scientists are depicted as criminals bent on destroying the planet. Creations of monsters or at bes

t as night creatures living in ivory towers. Popular revolt against research activities is world wide and particularly evident in the United States. Our crisis is particularly evident and deep in the electronic and computer sector which lives now a period of absolute emergency as exemplified by the plight of the major European industries like Olivetti, Bull, Siemens and Philips. What should we do? The IVth Framework Programme foresees action and promotion along four different lines: 1). R&D programmes with the aim of promoting cooperation among research centres, industry and universities. 2). Cooperation in R&D with non-EC countries and international organisations and institutions. 3). Diffusion and demonstration programmes of the results of R&D within the EC. 4). Training and mobility of researchers within the EC.

The subsidiarity principle appears to be of overwhelming importance in five areas: 1). BIG SCIENCE: activities which imply great projects at the international level. 2). TECHNOLOGICAL PRIORITY: in sectors having a strong potential industrial and economical drive. 3). ACTIVITIES FINALIZED TOWARD THE GLOBAL MARKET.

4). PRE-NORMATIVE RESEARCH: whenever the acquisition of scientific and technological data is necessary in order to fix standards and regulations. 5).EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY: aiming toward a greater integration on a community level through networks and exchanges. The total funding is foreseen to be about 14,700 MECU for the period 1993-1997. On this programme and on the figures hover the clouds which threaten the Maastricht Treaty. Beyond the details of the Framework Programme I can only offer a few comments on the future European research. I think that the priority lies in establishing a proper and efficient decisional procedure at community level aimed at the impartial evaluation of results and of the researchers. This process should be totally detached from local lobbying. Unfortunately the subsidiarity principle is only too often used in order to preserve and defend these very strong local interests and keep alive obsolete and inefficient institutions. As a rule EC countries should use experts from

the whole community and, why not, also from all over the world, in particular from the United States and Japan. Finally we should encourage, through an appropriate fiscal regime, private donations to research institutions. I realize that in a moment of crisis my proposal is at the moment the best impopular but it is also worth remembering the important role which donations had in the scientific growth and achievements of the United States. Already now private and popular support for cancer research provide an important and vital alternative to public funding in several European countries.