 Ladies and gentlemen, we will start this press conference with the title, Keeping Europe on the Map in an Evermore Competitive World. We have very distinguished guests here who will talk about this topic. I will introduce them in order of the seating, and then we will start talking about this topic. I have to my left Professor Jean-Pierre Bouguignon, President of the European Research Council. Then we have Carlos Muedas, who is the European Commissioner for Research, Science, and Innovation at the European Commission. And we have Professor Sir Christopher Pizarrides, who's a Nobel Laureate in Economic Science, also at the European Research Council grantee. So I would like to ask first Mr. Muedas, the European Commissioner, to start with a few remarks, followed by our other guests on the panel, and then we will open the floor for some questions. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for being here. First of all, let me tell you that it is a real pleasure to be actually sitting here with one Nobel Laureate and another Nobel Laureate just sitting there in front of me. And both of them are Sirs. So apart from the professors, Sirs, they are Nobel Laureates. And I feel very humbled by that. And of course with Professor Bouguignon, a man who has done and is doing a fantastic job at the European Research Council. I think that I would start by saying that the professors, and I shared your opinion, that fundamental visionary research is vital for our future prosperity in Europe and in the world. Science and research undertaken by front runners and emerging leaders in their field, creating knowledge, exploring new parameters, conjuring the scientific technological breakthroughs that improve our lives, give rise to new businesses, opportunities, and greatly increase our global competitiveness. The European Research Council is a research funding body set up by the EU not a long ago. It was in 2007. Since then, it has funded some of the most brilliant, new, and tested minds around the world. We have here ERC grantees and Nobel Laureates that know what I'm talking about, enabling them to conduct their cutting edge work in Europe. The ERC is part of the EU funding program for research, science, and innovation called Horizon 2020. Horizon 2020 is our biggest tool, is the biggest public research budget to date, and it's the biggest program in the world. The ERC has received around 13 billion euros for the period of 2014 to 2020. ERC funding has proven to be an invaluable asset for Europe. The ERC has supported, as of today, around 4,300 research principles of 64 different nationalities, located in 600 research-performing establishments in sturdy countries in Europe and associated countries so far, providing grants to the people whose discoveries can start new industries, new markets, and improve our quality of life. The ERC curiosity-driven competitive approach has enabled it to fund a broad portfolio of research, including projects which address the grand challenges as well as fundamental questions faced by European and global society. Like the Norwegian husband and wife team of Professor May Breit and Edward Moser, 2014 Nobel Prize-winning discovery of proof of the human brain's inner navigation system. Like Graphene, and we have the great pleasure to have here the man that was actually part of actually that great and amazing discovery. To keep our economy competitive, we must remain at the forefront of research, science, and innovation. And to remain at the forefront of research, science, and innovation, we must keep encouraging our researchers to take risks, only by enabling our top talent to explore the unknown. Can we stretch the limits of the understanding and breaking new ground? For every project and attempt that is unsuccessful, there is still the further opportunity to learn from what went wrong. Europe needs to encourage its thinkers and risk-takers. Secured funding in the form of grants frees researchers from concerns about the immediate impact of their work, multiple grant applications, and pressures to publish. It allows specially young emerging leaders to really focus on their core research. To advance as a competitive global partner, we need the world's best to make Europe's their laboratory. To make Europe the destination of choice for the world's most groundbreaking scientists, research, and innovators. Thank you very much, and I'm really willing for your questions. And now I'll pass on to the moderator. Thank you. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Now I will give the floor to Professor Sir Pissarides to add his thoughts about that. Thank you very much. In the last few days, as you probably realize our concern was about very, very short-term issues like what's DCB going to do, how many billions of euros is it going to spend, and all that. And it's understandable given what we are going through, especially for some of Greek background, it's twice understandable given the elections we're having on Sunday. But ultimately, what's going to bring recovery to Europe and what's going to drive our future economic growth is technology. It's innovation, technology, application, productivity. Because we live in an open world, and the only way you can compete in an open world is new technological innovation, new productivity, drivers within a stable macroeconomic environment. We've been putting too much emphasis on the macroeconomic environment recently, but we mustn't forget that, basically, and especially our scientists when we go home and do take note that I'm calling myself a scientist, although some people call me a dismal economist a few days yesterday. Not me personally, of course, and I understand. And ultimately, that's what we spend most of our time, and that's what we're looking for. Now, when you are at a stage of not high educational standards or advanced in your economic development, you might think, oh, well, it's easy enough. Why don't I copy what the frontier countries are doing? In our case, let's face it, it's the United States. But for Europe, it's not good enough to say why don't we copy the United States. We've got to innovate ourselves. I mean, we cannot just be followers throughout. We've got a highly educated labor force. We've got mature countries. We've got good universities. We can produce wealth. We shouldn't ignore it, and we should be moving forward all the time, especially now that countries like China started putting in a lot into research competition would intensify. Now, the Horizon 2020 program, of course, it's an excellent program. If you ask me, are you happy, well, I would be even happier if I had more to spend than what it has, but then is there any limit to that? The answer is no. Don't forget that Lisbon 2000 said that within 10 years, we were going to overtake the United States in technology, and we did, and we should try harder this time. Remember also that it's not only discovery that matters. Discovery new great things like graphene from my colleague here. We spent a wonderful week together in Stockholm in 2010. Quite justifiably, they were in the limelight, and we followed behind, because that's the fate of economists in the mind of Mr. Alfred Nobel, but we can't complain, at least we are there. And the great discovery is like that, but we should also be concerned about implementation, and learning how to implement the things we are discovering in Europe also needs research. In fact, we lost some quite famous European discoveries to the United States and big American companies, because we didn't have the right market environment and the right incentives to implement them in Europe. So remember that when we're talking funding, we're talking about discovery, about how to use those for the benefit of the people as a whole, not just for the benefit of publications in pathbreaking papers, which are then taken up by someone else. And remember also that there is a human side to it. As an economist, I have to emphasize it. There is an employment side. We want the innovation and the new technology to be inclusive. How do we bring in everyone to benefit from it and not just FQ? And this is where we, the economists, are coming in. And in particular, the research project that the European Research Council is funding, which I'm supervising now, is exactly about that. Where are the jobs going to come from the new digital age? If we have automation, what are the people going to do that they're going to lose those jobs? We had a session here on the first day, in fact, that was quite illuminating when I saw it, because there were the CEOs from high-tech companies saying, well, they have to shut down so many jobs. Technology will eat up so many jobs. And there was general concern, where are those people going to go? Well, that's the whole question of inclusiveness. And that's what the ERC is generously funding through one of my universities, my university. And the only thing I would say, I see that I've run out of time. The only thing I would say is that congratulations for the good work. And please carry on. And next time we meet here, I hope it's 20% more than now. The funding that we have. Thank you very much, sir. I will hand over to Professor Bouguignon from the European Research Council for his thoughts. Thank you very much. So I'm very pleased to be here. I'm sitting next to Commissioner Moedas and to Sir Christopher. And also, I'm very pleased that some ERC grantees are in the room. I could, in particular, thank the World Economic Forum to have been given an opportunity to have a number of ERC grantees here participating. My point as president of ERC is really to really give you an idea of how the scientific council, which is really quite unique situation in the program of the European Commission, has been given the power of deciding how to spend the amount of money which is given to its disposal, which is very significant, and also how to organize the evaluation. Because we are talking here about a program which really selects a project. And of course, the very key issue is who is doing the selection. And we are very pleased that I think we have been able. And because the scientific community is very convinced of the importance of ERC to really get in our panels some of the leading scientists. So I think we need to keep this situation that is to convince the best scientists to participate in the evaluation. And I think when I talk to them, clearly what is the main reason why they agreed to do that? Because they are participating in discussions at a very high level. And they are confronted with projects at a very high level. So this is really this intellectual stimulation and the feeling they are participating in something which is going to change the science altogether that really motivates them to come. And I know it's hard work, but that's really a very key element. So that was my first point. That is the responsibility which is given to scientific counsel, which is unique actually in the European Commission. And we are very grateful of the confidence that has been the trust that we have been given. The other point I want to make, which for me is also very important as president, is that ERC is really addressing knowledge very broadly. That is, we don't introduce barriers between various disciplines. We have 25 panels, because we have to organize the evaluation in some way. And definitely for us, we want to go from mathematics, which is PE1, a physics engineering one, up to social sciences and humanities. So we really cover the physics engineering on one hand, life sciences on the other hand, and also social sciences and humanities. So we really want, we cover everything. And it's very important that we have this ability, because among the projects, we have more and more of this project, which actually touch different things. So priori disciplinarity at the initiative of the scientist is something which is more and more on the map. And I think we have to organize ourselves to really recognize this into the disciplinarity and really to evaluate properly. The other point I want to make, which has been the choice of the scientific council and a very consistent choice. That is, we repeatedly, the choice has been made, because as I said, the scientific council has a responsibility of saying how it will spend the money to put the main emphasis on young people. So the programs we have are three levels. One level is two to seven years of the PhD, seven to 12 years of the PhD, and then so-called advanced grants without limitation. And two-thirds of the money goes to younger people. So it means that two-thirds of the people who are actually funding are between 30 and 40. And we know it's a very critical stage for scientists. When they become independent, they can develop their own team. And we know how critical it is. And also, the fact that the funding is for five years, it gives really people really some kind of a possibility to really think big and to really be ambitious. And that's really exactly how we push people. And actually, they have to be ambitious, because the competition is very tough. And it's only about the success rate is about 10%, which is not so much. And I think as a result, I mean, the people who get supported, and that's what I hear from the scientific community everywhere, these people are really distinguished by their quality of the project they are pushing. So this is very, very critical. So as Commissioner Moedache said, of course, the importance of the program that the European Commission is putting forward to support science is, of course, not unrelated. And I'm using an end of statement to state that to the competitiveness from the economic point of view of Europe. And that's why in one component which didn't escape the scientific council, this is why we have a so-called proof of concept program which accompanies the ERC grantees, the people who receive support from ERC, who are already very distinguished scientists, when they feel that along the way or their research, they can branch off to something which is more connected to market or something more connected to really a societal challenge. And this program is more and more successful. Actually, we have more and more candidates. And at the moment where ERC is giving more or less almost 1,000 contract per year, actually, we have, basically, we have already 100 proof of contract per year. So it shows that really the scientists are, I mean, a number of scientists see the possibility for their work to branch off to something else. We know that the amount of money we put at the disposal on top of the usual amount they have is not so much. But actually, one thing we can witness now is that receiving support for the proof of concept is a fantastic element for people when they want to create a startup or so on. Because it shows that they have already been able to come up with a business plan which is really seen as a viable by professional people. The people who evaluate this proof of concept are not scientists. They're really people who are professional valorization. And so I mentioned this because even if the amount of money is not so huge, but because I think it shows that the scientific council who is deciding and making his decision strictly on scientific grounds, of course, is completely conscious of the dimension of competitiveness of Europe. And of course, the critical competitiveness is really to keep in Europe or to attract in Europe back for some of them or just to attract them to Europe for good. Some of the very best scientists in the world. So this is really what it is about. And actually, it's amazing to see the number of grantees that actually we have been able to brought back to the US typically, who saw that the best possibility for them to develop their research was in Europe and also some of the best young people from outside. Just to give an example about China, we have at the moment only eight Chinese grant holder, but we have more than 700 Chinese in the teams that are financed by ERC. And some of the very best young Chinese are actually part of these teams. So it shows the capacity of such a program to have a transformative effect. And the transformation, and I'm coming to my end, is really in two ways. The first way, of course, is the fact that the researcher are really pushed to be ambitious, to submit really very ambitious project. And this is very important. So it's not just money, as usual, just to get your work going on. You know that to achieve an ERC grant, you really have to propose something really ambitious. That's what makes the difference. And the second point is also transformative on institutions, because now ERC has become a reference, which is something quite remarkable in such a short period of time. We're just eight years old as an institution. And really now getting ERC grants is really a criteria for institutions to prove that they're really on the map. And of course, it means this very tough competition means that there are some winners and some losers. So I hope the losers learn lessons from the winners. And actually, some of the winners are willing to share the experience they have had. And I think it's this transformative effect of creating an element of dynamics in the European scientific establishment is very, very important. So this is where I want to stop. My last point, of course, is remember always Europe is a complicated structure in the sense that, of course, the input of the European Commission is very important. In the case of ERC, it has been absolutely decisive, I think, in terms of the competitiveness of science in Europe. But the countries have also to do their share. And actually, as president, that's one of my duties, which is to talk to the ministers and to convince them that they cannot tell, well, if you're good enough, you get your money from the ERC. Actually, the countries have to do their share and they have to also have their program. So we have seen, because of the crisis, a number of countries actually cut in some cases quite badly on the research budget. This has not been the case of the European Commission, which has really committed a very substantial budget for research. But Europe is really a combination of the work of the European Commission and the work of the countries. And we need to find the proper dynamics for this. And this is the way, I think, I view my own contribution as president, namely in between the two. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Professor. We have time for a few questions. If you have a question, would you please introduce yourself and wait for the microphone, since this is live webcast. And so that our audience on the webcast can also listen to your question. So please, any questions in the room? Yes, there's one here and one over there. Yes, can we start here, please? Thank you. Luca Fazzani from the Swiss Public Radio. For Professor Bouguignon, Professor Pissarito said we can't just copy the US in innovations. Is that so bad? Is that today's situations, according to you? Well, I think, as you know, for innovation, there are several components. The first component, of course, is the intellectual input. The fact that you have something that you see can really have an impact. You can have a new product. You can have a new process. And to do that, of course, you need, very often, from the scientific point of view, some new input. But of course, you need people who are able to make the connection, the translators, the people who create this link. And for this point of view, I think Europe has not been as good as Silicon Valley or other places. But you should be aware that if you want this to happen, you cannot just say, I'm going to get the ideas from the US or from China, and then we are going to develop it in Europe. I think at the moment, we have, in particular, in the younger generation, a very dynamic group of scientists. And we need to accompany them in their efforts to, when they are interested to do that themselves, in their effort to go closer to markets. But then, if they are not interested themselves to do it, we have to develop the right people and the right structures, the right schemes to have this done. So I think that's the situation presently, but it's true at this moment that Europe is lagging behind in terms of this translation or this innovation of the whole industrial sector by new ideas, by innovation. Thank you very much, Professor. Commissioner, I think you want to add something to that. The question was not just to help here on Professor Brighignon's point and on Professor Pissiradis, which is that I've told quite often that Europe is excellent at transforming euros into knowledge, but eventually not as good as transforming that knowledge into euros, meaning into products. And I think that that comes from the need in Europe for a broader view of innovation. Innovation is and sometimes starts by an invention, but innovation doesn't stop in the invention. Innovation is much broader than that. And so we are lucky because in Europe, we are today the flagship of fundamental and curiosity research of the world. So we have the raw material. I mean, we are 7% of the world, and we produce 30% of the knowledge. But then you have to do that step. And that step actually involves looking at innovation of processes, innovation of business plans, of design, and all these features that actually transform and get to the chain of the process from the fundamental to actually the product. And it's absolutely a crucial point for Europe. Thank you very much, Commissioner. We had another question here on the left side. Yes, hello. Blessig from Agence France-Presse. I would like to ask a question to Sir Pissarides. I wanted to know, in the presentation, you said you have some ideas to lower unemployment in Europe. Could you just elaborate on it? Yes, I'll try to be brief because we're running out of time, but I could be talking tomorrow about that issue if you want me to. The ideas and what we are working on on the project, what we started working on and then received the funding to work is how to help create jobs that at the lower end of the skills distribution, if you like, because where unemployment is high is where skills are absent. Now, normally, you hear people saying, well, the way to deal with that is to upgrade the skills. So upgrade skills and go up and up. But the problem is that there is demand, and there will be increasing demand, for people to do jobs that do not really require technical skills. The main skills that they will require will be skills on human contact, how to deal with other people. The best examples may be our health care workers. As our population is aging and as our standards of living are rising, we have more demand for health services and we have more demand for care, not strictly highly qualified medical services, but care itself, which normally in poorer societies, if you like, is taken by lying in bed and feeling miserable for two, three days until you recover. Nowadays, we have demands that people will need to look after you. How do you make sure that those jobs are respectable, well compensated jobs so that more and more people will be doing it? We haven't been good at that in Europe, with the exception of the Scandinavian countries. We haven't been creating enough jobs of that kind, and there is demand that goes unsatisfied. Another kind of demand that as progress is taking place, as time is getting more limited, and again with aging, we would expect better retail service, for example, in our shops. In Europe, we do wait much longer in queues to get served in a shop or to pay than in the United States, for example. Now the United States has succeeded in creating that kind of job by tolerating high levels of inequality. Those people are working at minimum wage when top wages rise more and more. In Europe, we haven't been tolerant of that. We've introduced institutions and regulations that are not conducive to the creation of that type of job. The outcome in terms of pay is less inequality, which is good, but then it's bad in terms of job creation, and that's one of the reasons that we're having such high youth unemployment rates. Again, we're working on ideas how to make sure that that type of job is created and is more respectable and people feel proud that they're doing it well compensated. At the same time, they provide the service to the people that require it. So I think those two examples will stop there because we're moving on to the other club. Okay. I mean, normally we are running out of time, but if there is another question here, we will take that. Yes, please. Thank you very much, Marcel-André, Swiss Public TV for Mr. Pissaritas again, sorry. I just wanted to ask you one question referring to the elections, to tomorrow's elections in Greece. No, that's not it. From your economic vantage point, what are the biggest risks for Greece and the European Union in your opinion? Well, it's not quite an ERC or a research question, but that's a very, very brief. For me, the biggest risk is the breakdown of communication and what are European commissioners and leaders cross solidarity. And that's my fear that we'll start, that we'll move into an antagonistic environment that will make the situation worse. We had a very cooperative solidarity driven, if you like, approach to European integration until the recession of 2008 and especially the debt crisis of 2010. Then relations within the Eurozone didn't quite go as smoothly as before. We started having debtors and creditors and arguments and you give me this, I give you that, blah, blah, blah. And then we are improving now and we're getting back to cooperation and that's why I held with so much enthusiasm the decision of the European Central Bank yesterday, which was a Eurozone decision looking at Eurozone as a whole and not individual countries. And the biggest fear I have, my biggest risk is that we're going to regress in that, no, we're going to, I fear in case we regress in that kind of convergence back to a cooperative approach to our problems in Europe. And I'm hoping that what we're hearing in the pre-election campaigns is just electioneering and once a new government is in, forgets about those things and realizes that unless we cooperate in Europe, especially the Eurozone, we're just, we're all going to suffer and we're going to go backwards. Thank you very much, sir. Otherwise you can develop maybe after the press conference in an interview. Commissioner, do you want to add anything before we conclude? Yes, I just would probably go back to the question of unemployment because I think it's a crucial question for Europe. And when you look at unemployment and you look at the solutions for Europe, the solution is to be more productive. And to be more productive, you have three ways. One is that you actually work more for the same amount of money. The other one is that you actually work the same for less money. Or the third, which is the way that the European Commission has chosen, is that you get more up into the innovation ladder that you create better products that you can sell to more people in different markets and you can pay better your employees, the people that create those businesses and that you are better off and that the society is better off. And that's why the agenda of science research and innovation is the answer for that problem in the medium and the long term. And so you have, in one way, you have to actually do the right structural reforms in Europe. And Professor Pisserides referred to it that Europe is still fragmented and you have to actually do those reforms in different countries, from the labor market to the product market to the judicial market, you have to do those reforms. And then you have to invest in actually getting businesses to create products and better products and to go up in these ladder of innovation. And so there's no magic bullet and sometimes you feel that people think that there would be a magic bullet, but at national level or at the European level, you actually have to work in these two parts which are really what will change Europe, the structural reforms in one side to have a market, internal market that works in the labor end of the product side and on the other side, keep investing in science and innovation. And I think that's the two points that will actually take us to the future if we are actually winning this battle in Europe. So, but absolutely the crucial question. Professor Bouguigno, do you want to say a few words? Well, as conclusion, well, maybe two points. The first point, I think, which has been for me since I took office a year ago, fantastic experience has been to meet your acquaintances and to see how much they are energy, their ambition and also for many of them, how often they told me without this support, I would not have been able to do the research I'm doing now and also some of them telling me if this had not happened, I would not be there, I would be elsewhere. So it's a very, very important message. And the second one which I think has to do with the relation that the ERC is having with the other programs of the European Commission. Of course, we are very, very conscious of the responsibility which has been given to the scientific council to really, for example, decide how to spend the money and how to organize the evaluation. But I feel that this responsibility, I hope people outside consider we are doing it in the right way. But for me, for the future, I really count on the very close cooperation with Commissioner Moedas and he knows that it's not just here that I see this. And therefore, we really like that we contribute to the global efforts of the Directorate General to which we are, in a sense, attached, although we have some independence in the most efficient way and the most positive and cooperative way. So this is, for me, this collaboration is very, very important. And I think the fact that we are having this conference, press conference together is one first sign, but I hope there would be many others. Thank you. Thank you very much to the audience and to our panelists for this press conference. Thank you.