Paper Titles & Abstracts

The current presentation spells out the, often unspoken risks, of the current EC plans and trends. As a result of the widening of RTD funding scope, the work of DG RTD and national foundations of Member States have been increasingly overlapping. This may soon prompt a decision on how to systematise funding at the EU level. Aware of this risk, and in the search for a market niche, the European Commission has shown a tendency to emphasise the practical side of research. Funding of research projects has been increasingly linked to their capacity to produce new job opportunities, work places and innovation. This has been a tendency visible in the last years that the EC is trying to accelerate and overtake MS in this, in an attempt to find a raison d'etre that would put an end to the fight between national sovereignty and devolution the EC has been captured by since its inception. Tensions between the EC and MS have been exacerbated, and possibly accelerated, by the current economic crisis. In such a scenario, who is going to be willing, at ERA level, to fund non-applied or less-applicable sciences such as philosophy or archeology (among others)? This question introduces the main argument of my presentation: current trends in ERA are leading to such an emphasis on the practical side of research that might lead to the death of research as such. This is not necessarily evil, but is the starting point for a reflection on the current and future meaning of the word research at European level. Who will be in charge of non-applied research in the future? Is there a need to do non-applied research? What is the future of the social sciences that have less visible impact on a society than the hard sciences?