Opinion piece Luc Sels: What The Hague sees more clearly than Brussels
Both Dutch and European leaders speak about research and innovation in their plans for the future. But the Netherlands is now making the case for them more forcefully than Brussels, says Luc Sels, President of the Executive Board.
Due to the selected cookie settings, we cannot show this video here.
Watch the video on the original website or‘On 15 September, I experienced my first Prinsjesdag. For a Belgian who only recently arrived in the Netherlands, it was a new experience. I rather like the way a forward-looking national budget is wrapped in centuries of pomp and circumstance.
This was followed, on 16 September, by a tradition with which I have long been familiar: Ursula von der Leyen’s State of the Union address. There are many parallels between the Speech from the Throne and the State of the Union. Both The Hague and Brussels point to the accelerating pace of global change, emphasise the risks of strategic dependencies, raise concerns about security and resilience, and seek to strengthen future prosperity and competitiveness.
Yet one difference stood out. The Dutch government spoke clearly about the importance of research and innovation. Science was not presented as a separate policy domain, but as a driver of broad prosperity and strategic relevance in areas such as digitalisation and AI, security and resilience, energy and climate technologies, and the life sciences and biotechnology.
In the European State of the Union, by contrast, science, research and innovation occupied a disappointingly modest place. Of course, I read such a speech through the lens of an academic and a university leader. A farmer may be more inclined to look for terms such as agri or food, while those at either end of the political spectrum undoubtedly scan for issues such as migration.
Yet I voice this concern not only as an academic, but also as a European. A striking number of the issues that Von der Leyen addressed in what was otherwise a powerful and compelling speech will ultimately require answers grounded in knowledge, research and innovation.
Take China. Von der Leyen was right to point to Europe’s substantial trade deficit and the urgent need to reduce dependence on Chinese critical raw materials. At first glance, this appears to be a matter of trade policy and supply-chain diversification. Yet it also goes to the heart of science and innovation. If we want to become less dependent on others for chips, batteries, AI or medicines, we must strengthen the entire value chain, from fundamental research and technological development to innovation, production and commercialisation. Scientific strength is also geopolitical power.
Take AI. Von der Leyen rightly highlighted its potential for healthcare, business operations and public services. But Europe must aspire to more than the responsible use of technologies developed elsewhere. Technological sovereignty and digital autonomy are recurring themes in policy discussions across the continent. They are objectives that can only be achieved through excellent science that drives innovation and translates into economic activity.
Take Canada. The decision to invite Prime Minister Mark Carney as guest of honour was, in my view, inspired. Canada is an outstanding partner for Europe, and that partnership will only grow in importance as the turmoil on the other side of ‘Lake America’ continues to deepen. Above all, Canada is a key partner in research and innovation. Canada’s association with the Horizon Europe programme perfectly illustrates how I see European strategic autonomy: a less dependent Europe is not a closed Europe, quite the opposite. A strong domestic knowledge base enables us to build robust connections with the democratic middle powers, a group in which I would gladly place Canada.
Take Horizon Europe, the EU research programme that is currently the subject of intense negotiations. The €175 billion budget proposed by the Commission is under considerable pressure, and even innovation leaders such as Germany and the Netherlands are seeking to reduce it. At precisely such a moment, should a Commission President not remind us that Europe can only become a stronger knowledge-driven economy if we are willing to invest, and if we do a better job of aligning research, innovation, talent, capital and entrepreneurship?
For all these reasons, research and innovation deserved a more prominent place in an otherwise powerful speech. Not as yet another policy area alongside defence, energy, trade and digital autonomy, but as the solid foundation underpinning them all. Strategic power is difficult to achieve without academic strength. So yes, the academic is speaking here. But so too is the European. Ursula von der Leyen outlined the Europe we need. The negotiations on Horizon Europe and the European Competitiveness Fund will help determine whether we are also capable of providing it with the knowledge base it requires.’