10 May, 2011

Research1 FP8. Is the EU too proud, too atheistic, to scientifically research its origin and Europe's future?

What is the scientific topic that is of most vital interest to the entirety of European research? What is the European scientific discovery that countries around the world look for with green envy and wish they had it?

It is a scientific achievement that has the world gazing in open-mouthed wonder.

Clue: it is the topic that the present European leaders refuse to fund as part of the Framework programme for research. Not only in the present programme, but I know of no funded research in any of the multibillion euros programmes in the past.

That intellectual question, of course, is:

How did Europe create a system that brought PEACE to the warring, bloody states of Europe? After exporting its quarrels and creating two world wars, how is it that today Europe is now living in the LONGEST PERIOD OF PEACE IN 2000 years? Why are there continuous wars and violence, authoritarianism and misery to the north, south and east of the European Union? How did the European Community become a prosperous ZONE of PEACE?

Robert Schuman called it Europe's great SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT. The Framework Programme for research, however, has become an iron box constraining all research into the materialistic scientism of our deformed educational system and the economic egotism of politicians. Politicians want to set the goals of research -- and in the 2020 and 2030 programmes they want no more talk of democracy! They have other goals wrong too, by any impartial analysis. Research by its very nature should be open to new ideas. The European Union, if driven by these false motives and fed by billions of taxpayers' money, is directed to goals away from the noblest achievement of European history.

Why? Because both the atheistic educational system and the vanity of politicians is scared of addressing the miracle of our times.

How did nations and peoples who for 2000 or more years have for every generation killed and conquered each other, how did these warlike people suddenly embark on PEACE?

Robert Schuman attributes it to two factors: a scientific study of the history of humankind in various sectors and the revelation of Christianity. It is the latter -- or rather the combination of science and religion that that sends the politicians and the scientists into a tizzy.

Their reaction is irrational, emotional and unscientific. Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist of modern times, acknowledged as such by Einstein and others, spent more of his time studying the Bible in Greek and Hebrew than he did on the experiments and theories of gravitation, optics and the creation of mathematical tools like calculus. Why? Because by studying the Bible he drew inspiration for solving the deepest mysteries of the physical world. His motives were not scientific discovery alone but the quest of personal truth and understanding his place in the Creator's universe.

The same is true for Michael Faraday, the chemist and great experimenter of physics who discovered electromagnetism and its invisible fields. Without his work on electric motors and dynamos, modern society could not function. The theoretician of electromagnetism, James Clerk Maxwell, also drew his inspiration from the Bible and his belief and faith in his Creator.

These men made great discoveries. Their faith taught them humility and they often refused honours and decorations. Humility and the search for truth is necessary in establishing scientific facts from myths and errors.

They described physical processes that had escaped the wisest men of antiquity. Our universities teach Aristotle, Plato and many other ancient pagan philosophers. They were undoubtedly smart, perhaps they were even cleverer than any of the present generation. Yet they never discovered the physics of gravity or were able to apply the principles of electromagnetism. Without a spiritual revelation the material characteristics of the physical world around them remained a mystery.

In our times a great mystery has been revealed. Yet when it comes to the miracle of our times -- the means to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible -- the EU is silent and dumb. It wants its research to pursue dumb projects that have nothing to do with Man's purpose on this planet. Where did Schuman gain his insights? Is it a coincidence that he also studied the Bible on a daily basis? Is it not worth scientific study that if the greatest innovators and scientists of our age say they drew their inspiration from the Bible, then we should study whether this is coincidence or divine revelation? To dismiss the remarkable 'coincidence' is a sign of prejudice not science. It is a manifestation of the pervading religion of our times -- arrogant, materialistic scientism with its own atheistic dogmas and ideologies.

What did Schuman say about the philosophers he had studied at universities and which he continued to read in the original Latin and Greek? 'The Book of Proverbs in the Bible is richer in sense than all the vast tomes of philosophy.' Was it practical? Was it useful for a statesman and Prime Minister who had steered France through its greatest external post-war threats (Soviet expansion, an attempted Communist coup d'Etat and the resurgent German problem), resolved its financial crises (massive inflation combined with enormous deficits), and set the foundation for a new age of peace in Europe? 'My long experience allows me to confirm how correct it is,' he told his colleague Rene Lejeune.

If this phenomenon is thus proven, if the results are confirmed by the greatest scientists, including Schuman, shouldn't Biblical philosophy be studied? Shouldn't it be part of the European research programme?

Woaah! That would shock the advisers and experts of the FP8! Why? Because the scientific research programme of the EU is not scientific. There are No Go areas. Set by whom? An anti-religious minority. The entire programme it would seem is in the control of atheists or sympathizers who do not call them out, who ban any research into the study of any philosophy that is not atheistic or comes from pagan Greek philosophers. These experts apparently are cleverer than Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein and Schuman combined!

Pagans? OK! Christianity? You will get NO money, only ribald laughter. Jewish philosophy and the Hebrew Bible? Huh. Do not even ask the question! Yet there are proportionally more Jewish Nobel prize winners than any other race or religion.

Why does the EU exclude what it despisingly calls the 'religious' that is non-pagan philosophy from the techniques and requirements for scientific discovery? Prejudice. Totally unscientific. One in five of the around 800 Nobel Prize winners have Jewish blood. Yet Jews amount to only one in 500 of the world's population. They make a extraordinarily disproportionate, rich and varied contribution to the scientific culture of the planet.

They come from all countries of the world. Babies start with zero education. Surely there must be something in the Book and culture that the Jews have preserved in all these environments for three or four thousand years. Even in the USA, those of Jewish origin gain 27 percent of the Nobel prizes, (3 % of the population) Protestant origin 72 percent and Roman Catholic 1 percent (with a quarter of the population). Einstein had a passionate zeal for ancient Jewish Solomonic philosophy in his youth and interestingly his theory of relativity draws on concepts of time and space long exposed in ancient Jewish writings.

With the EU's outdated, false ideas of the war of science and religion, it is no wonder that Europe's research is entering an impasse of its own making, and that of its unenlightened political leaders.

The Research and Innovation Directorate General of the Commission is requesting opinions on their latest Framework Programme and a Green Paper. Here are the replies of the Schuman Project.

Consultation on the Green Paper –

"Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU research and innovation funding"

The name of my organisation is
Schuman Project on the origin, purpose and future of the supranational European Community system and Robert Schuman's thought and action

Have you or your organisation received funding in the last three years from EU FP7, CIP or other EU programmes? ... None of the above

Have you or do you intend to submit a separate written response to this consultation ... Don't know

Working together to deliver on Europe 2020

1. How should the Common Strategic Framework make EU research and innovation more attractive and easy to access for participants? What is needed in addition to a single entry point with common IT tools, a one stop shop for support, a streamlined set of funding instruments covering the full innovation chain and further steps towards administrative simplification?

The European Commission's 2020 paper and the 2030 report have major flaws which are outlined in commentaries at http://www.schuman.info/2020-1.htm and /2020-2.htm plus /2030.htm dealing with the Gonzalez Report. These analyze the inadequacies of the Commission's position in relation to (1) democracy in a supranational Community of Europe (2) Energy security and the need for an Energy Community based on supranational democratic lines outlined by Robert Schuman and others in the past plus the need to set energy independence as a strategic goal. The criticism of the Gonzalez Report deals with (a) the lack of research in Security and Defence and in particular how the European Community system developed a security Community that 'made war not only unthinkable but materially impossible'. Those are the words of the Schuman Proposal of 9 May 1950. Schuman said his proposal was like 'a scientific experiment'. He had proved the theory and applied it. The result? Western Europe now has the longest period of peace in 2000+ years while neighbouring States still go to war. http://democracy.blogactiv.eu (b) the Energy problem and supply blackmail (c) democracy (d) the financial crisis and supranational solutions. The major question for the Commission is whether it wishes to get involved in the supranational question since it has avoided this research over the last decades. This is bizarre as the supranational system has produced the most beneficial outcomes in Europe's entire history

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

2. How should EU funding best cover the full innovation cycle from research to market uptake?

The EU should first acknowledge the area of research of the supranational which provided innovations such as 1. Europe's first Single market 1953, yes 1953! 2. Peace system is vital for research 3. Economic unity comes from this supranational process 4. Monetary union is possible but this needs to be coherent with supranational principles and at present it is not. The above are far more basic than usual considerations of the innovation cycle.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

3. What are the characteristics of EU funding that maximise the benefit of acting at the EU level? Should there be a strong emphasis on leveraging other sources of funding?

Funding is secondary to a healthy policy orientation. Funding without correct orientation can reinforce errors such as over-reliance on inter-governmentalism and disparaging of European democratic structures, including the proper place for organized civil society.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

4. How should EU research and innovation funding be used to pool Member States' research and innovation resources? Should Joint Programming Initiatives between groups of Member States be supported?

The structure of inter funding and cooperation should be coordinated with the properly set up supranational political and democratic structures rather than ad hoc committees.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

5.What should be the balance between smaller, targeted projects and larger, strategic ones?

In the applied research area coordination is necessary. In the pure research it is a matter of judgement of the results. In other areas planetary targets are necessary, comprising both small and large projects. This requires a system able to tackle complexity such as the supranational system.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

6.How could the Commission ensure the balance between a unique set of rules allowing for radical simplification and the necessity to keep a certain degree of flexibility and diversity to achieve objectives of different instruments, and respond to the needs of different beneficiaries, in particular SMEs?

Bureaucracy is a drag on research. The administration should be light and controls against corrupt practice should be managed via a multi-layered approach where appeals for analysis and inspection can be made when various alarm bells ring and help can then be sought from expertise to resolve problems. It is necessary to have a political decision that allows smaller amounts of money to be free of strings to allow and encourage research participation where innovative ideas are involved. Some other funding requires strict control. The supranational system provides possibilities for a democratic GosPlan of vast complexity. It could be more efficient than China's innovative approach and more flexible.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

7.What should be the measure of success for EU research and innovation funding? Which performances indicators could be used?

The concentration on economics is often counter-productive. The Schuman system took a Maslovian approach starting with creating peace, not war. Then economic gains can be made, followed by social and political innovations, then monetary union with corresponding enlarged democratic control (which we do not have). Further stages of development deal with ontological questions and human happiness (rather than the present politics of greed and selfishness). Thus a hierarchy of performance indicators is required involving the accumulation of wisdom, the principal matter.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

8.How should EU research and innovation funding relate to regional and national funding? How should this funding complement funds from the future Cohesion policy, designed to help the less developed regions of the EU, and the rural development fund?

The European institutions are at present still undeveloped. The Council does not act as an open forum as treaties require, nor does it integrate properly with national parliaments and other national bodies in free and open debate. The Committee of the Regions is not yet even democratically elected. it shoudl have its own elected sub-committees as well as the Economic and Social Committee which also has never had an election in its more than 50 years of existence. The reaction to this democratic tardiness is to create alternative committees while waiting for these institutions to gain the democratic spurs is often anti-progressive as it increasing the comitology. All decisions should have democratic legitimacy by elected representatives not by bureaucrats or their invitees. Money should not be earmarked by technical committees. Elected representatives should coordinate policies inside the well-designed Community system, not the horror we have today.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

Tackling Societal Challenges

9. How should a stronger focus on societal challenges affect the balance between curiosity-driven research and agenda-driven activities?

The focus of societal changes has not been properly addressed as the European Council issues its own pronoucements without full democratic consultation. It has returned to closed door intergovernmentalism. Thus full democracy is necessary BEFORE goals can be set. If ministers refuse to recognize referendums, if the elections get ever-declining turn-outs, if there is more and more discontent about the budget handling and if the support for political parties decline further (it is already far less than half of the popualtion), then the main work needs to be focused on democracy not artificial goals (sometimes lobby-driven) of the European Council.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

10. Should there be more room for bottom-up activities?

There should be adequate activities for democracy at all levels: 1. European with an eye on the planet, 2 national, 3 regional 4 economic and social (organized societies), 5 individual and 6 legal.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

11. How should EU research and innovation funding best support policy making and forward looking activities?

This is vital as politicians in an intergovernmental approach think short term, companies think about balance sheets. Inadequate interaction occurs on global issues which can seriously affect the EU, eg North Africa revolts, wars, energy embargoes, price hikes of oil/gas (greater than the EU budget!) China, US debt, climate change, population and food problems. All five original EU institutions should be the coordiantion agencies for dealing with certain aspects of such problems and challenges. This provides for the management of complexity. The Community provides a sectoral approach which provides clearer answers to vital questions. The Lisbon treaty's one-size-fits-all has proven inadequacy.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

12. How should the role of the Commission's Joint Research Centre be improved in supporting policy making and forward looking activities?

The JRC has huge potential but is not always able to deploy it. I say this as one who has worked there. In short it should act as a research arm for the five institutions as judged necessary and as agreed democratically.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

13. How could EU research and innovation activities attract greater interest and involvement of citizens and civil society?

Public involvement will come from democratizing the institutions as the Founding Fathers declared was necessary in their Charter declaration of 18 April 1951 (www.schuman.info/europedeclaration.htm ) and in developing the five outline structues they defined to improve supranational democracy of the Community system. Example, the European Parliament has not had a single election conforming to the articles in the treaties of Paris or Rome that say a single electoral statute should be passed valid for all States. www.schuman.info/election1.htm Elections of the EP and the EESC and CoR should be on a Europe-wide basis, according to the treaties we already have. www.schuman.info/schoolreport.htm The Economic and Social Committee has statutory powers of legal assent to legislation. Its legitimacy would come if it was elected on a European basis as the Founding Fathers said. It would provide a consensus decision combining viewpoints of 1 Enterprises, 2 Workers, 3 Consumers. Each grouping has a third of the votes.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

Strengthening competitiveness

14. How should EU funding best take account of the broad nature of innovation, including non technological innovation, eco-innovation, and social innovation?

By taking into account democratically formulated policy in all areas of human activities falling within Community treaties, the risk of technocratic decision-making can be minimized. The five institutions need to be fully working for this.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

15. How should industrial participation in EU research and innovation programmes be strengthened? How should Joint Technology Initiatives (such as those launched in the current Framework Programmes) or different forms of "public private partnership" be supported? What should be the role of European Technology Platforms?

Refer to my answer to 13. Inventing further committees without legitimacy of democracy is counter-productive and makes public support more difficult.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

16. How and what type of Small and Medium-sized Entreprises (SME) should be supported at EU level; how should this complement national and regional level schemes? What kind of measures should be taken to decisively facilitate the participation of SMEs in EU research and innovation programmes?

Support is a loaded word as it implies directing the goals of SMEs to something other than they would have chosen. The best motiviation is self motivation. The best goals are those where the SMEs feel they are making a positive contribution to a common useful, human, strategic goal of planetary importance. Recycling tax payers money via bureaucrats is sometimes the least efficient way for a society to achieve important goals. Helping SMEs to use their own profits wisely helps the whole of society.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

17. How should open, light and fast implementation schemes (e.g. building on the current FET actions and CIP eco-innovation market replication projects) be designed to allow flexible exploration and commercialisation of novel ideas, in particular by SMEs?

See my answer to 13.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

18. How should EU level financial instruments (equity and debt based) be used more extensively?

Financial solvency should not be compromised by offering credit where it would undermine the economy as we see not only in Ireland. it would be a healthier step to initiate sound financial practice rather than for the EU to be unthinking instruments of banks either directly or indirectly. See 16.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

19. Should new approaches to supporting research and innovation be introduced, in particular through public procurement, including through rules on pre-commercial procurement, and/or inducement prizes?

All these schemes involve goals with little democratic basis and furthermore open to corrupt practice and lobbying. Public procurement for example requires tax money be used after interactive democratic discussions not the whim of a party politician. This also begs the question as to why ever increasing emphasis on R&D is made when little discussion is had on the goals and outcomes of an ever acquisitive, ever-competitive society. Research for what? Prizes for what? A more humane society, a more spiritual society or a more selfish society?

How important are the aspects covered in this question?

20. How should intellectual property rules governing EU funding strike the right balance between competitiveness aspects and the need for access to and dissemination of scientific results?

Patent monopolies and abuse was a major factor in World Wars eg IG Farben and Exxon. China is aiming to corner some intellectual property rights of major industries. As yet a full discussion of such issues has not been had. Discussion of patent cartels and monopolies must be opened up. This is a very specialized topic and a complex one. That is why the Founding Fathers created a Consultative Committee that would bring three sections: enterprises, workers and consumers together to take decisions on such matters. The outcome depends on my answer at 13.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

Strengthening Europe's science base and the European Research Area

21. How should the role of the European Research Council be strengthened in supporting world class excellence?

See my answer at 13.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

22. How should EU support assist Member States in building up excellence?

See my answer at 13.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

23. How should the role of Marie Curie Actions be strengthened in promoting researcher mobility and developing attractive careers?

How important are the aspects covered in this question?

24. What actions should be taken at EU level to further strengthen the role of women in science and innovation?

Gender issues as well as many others are part of my answer in 13.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

25. How should research infrastructures (including EU-wide e-Infrastructures) be supported at EU level?

See answer to 13. This involves as it has for the last decades since Euronet in the 1980s the laying of fast telecom lines and data structures but the ultimate need is for democratic interactions.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

26. How should international cooperation with non-EU countries be supported e.g. in terms of priority areas of strategic interest, instruments, reciprocity (including on IPR aspects) or cooperation with Member States?

Policy issues need to be formulated using the Community method. Some international interactions are downright dangerous for Europeans. For example exports of fissile material and dual use technologies to Iran and other countries should be assured through the controls of the Euratom treaty which have never really been implemented (see www.schuman.info/euratom.htm ) The same is true of other sectors and areas that should be coordinated and policy defined via active European institutions such as the Commission, EECS, CoR, EP and the Council. Companies and consumers working with non-EU countries bring a huge amount of intelligence about ways to cooperate with them and their cultures. That is why institutions like the EESC were created so that this knowledge can be shared.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

27. Which key issues and obstacles concerning ERA should EU funding instruments seek to overcome, and which should be addressed by other (e.g. legislative) measures?

All issues and goals should be subject to proper democratic debate BEFORE there is talk of taxpayers' funding of projects and Legislation. It is for ddemocratic instances to declare the direction. At present there is a great risk that these choices are made by over-active lobby groups without adequate debate taking place in the Council and that behind closed doors. National parliaments have to pass block legislation and there are still no adequate debates and simplifications procedures. Rather politicians are subject to legislative and funding gluttony in attempts to show they are active and have worthwhile careers. Then the legislation or the projects are found to be wrong-headed, the laws indigestible and incomprehensible. Democracy is lacking in the conception of goals, in the process of initiating funding and the writing of laws.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

Closing question

Are there any other ideas of comments which you believe are important for future EU research and innovation funding and are not covered in the Green Paper?

Actual research of the supranational system, its origin and purpose as well as the means to redress against corrupt practice have not been part of the EU research, mainly it would seem it would collide with political goals. This is a sad commentary on the present politics of Europe. After 50 years where nationalists such as de Gaulle tried their best to destroy the Community, and milk the system (CAP meat mountains and milk lakes, secret funding of nuclear projects etc), it is now time to realise that the Community system will not turn over and die. Corruption in all its forms still needs to be addressed. The Community systems still survives because it has a moral base. Supranational democracy represents the major chance and benefit for Europe and for the planet.

No comments:

Post a Comment