Bridging the research gap: key challenges
Speech by Wolfgang Götz at the conference ‘Bridging the research gap in the field of illicit drugs research in the EU’, 24 September 2009
(To be checked against delivery)
Intro...
I would like tostart by thanking the European Commissionfor giving me the opportunity to talk to you this morning, and also for stimulating debate on theimportant area of European drugs research.
Today, I would just like to say a few words about the development of drugs research in Europe and the challenges ahead. This is from the perspective ofsomeone working in an agency that has been grappling with the development of a European information base on drug use for many years.When we refer to the European Union, we are talking about 27 countries with23 official national languages and about half a billion citizens. In many respects, this is at the core of the problem we face when considering how to develop a coherent European research strategy on drugs. However, the central message I would like you to take from my presentation is that this diversity is also our strongest asset.The challenge is to develop coordination mechanisms and structures that allow us to exploit the considerable potential Europe has in this field. And I believe that the discussions we will have here in Brussels can set us on a journey that will transform the way we do drugs research in Europe.
This objective is of criticalimportance. Research provides the foundation on which successful interventions in the drugsfield are built. Put simply, if we understand better, we respond better.And today, more than ever,I see the need for a comprehensive evidence base in this field. This is because we face a problem of growing complexity and one that is directly or indirectly linked with many of the major social and political issues we now have to deal with inEurope: I am not
only talking about mental and physical health but also national security and foreign policy— crime and the problems of our inner cities — personal freedoms and responsibilities— immigration and social exclusion.In all these issues, drugs play an increasingly important role.To me,this is not a matter of choice. We need to do better at European level in stimulating research projects, in sharing research findings and in putting the findings from research into practice. Full stop.
Our mission here in Brussels is then clearly an important one — it is also,I have to admit,a rather demanding one. Forgive me… but I must speak candidly. This is not the first time this objective has been pursued at European level and this is certainly not the first meeting that we have held on the need to stimulate European drugs research. We have even seen money being spent, with investments made in supporting European networking and collaboration. And yet, despite a few notable exceptions, the achievements we have made thus far have been largely disappointing. Against such a background, it could be feared that this conference may mark the end of a process rather than the beginning of one — another well-meaning but ultimately inconsequential exercise.
I think we all agree that the topic is too important for us to allow this to happen.We must seize the opportunityto make sure that in the future this event is seen as the crucial point of departure in the development of a strategic vision fordrugs research in Europe.I am optimistic that we can achieve this and moreover believe that a window of opportunity now exists for us to move forward in a way that was not possible in the past.This comes from a more mature policy perspective that you see concretely in the European drugs strategy and Action plan. It also comes from the importance now given to supporting evidence-based actions across Europe.
I represent an organisation that I suspect has a unique perspective on developing European scientific collaboration in this field. There have sometimes been rather odd,semantic discussions as to whether the activities of the EMCDDA come under the heading of research. I won’t comment on this topic other than to say I recall that the astronaut Neil Armstrong — a man whose life depended heavily on the results of scientific advancements —defined research as the creation of new knowledge.I rather like this definition and certainly we see ourselves in Lisbon as very much in the knowledge business.
Earlier this year we held our own conference to mark 15 years of monitoring drugs in Europe. This provided an opportunity to reflect on the progress we have made in Europe in understanding the drugs phenomenon. I think that in many respects the lessons learned are also relevant for the broader issue of drugs research in general. Fifteen years ago, the EMCDDA embarked on what many people viewed at the time as a near-impossible task. Only a few countries had developed monitoring approaches and where these did exist, they differed. In many countries, we could say almost nothing about the drug situation. Today, the landscape is very different and thecapacity to report on drugs now exists across Europe.I have to say this is not our achievement alone — much of the work and indeed the investmentsmade have been undertaken by our Member States, and we particularly benefit from the hard work and dedication of the network of Reitox national focal points. The point I want to make is that the existence of appropriate European-level structures can be a catalyst for development,can deliver real long-term benefits and, importantly,can add value to national activities. A key question for you to consider at this meeting is what structures and mechanisms can be utilised or developed to support drugs research in Europe.
The title of this session is ‘Bridging the gap’.Coincidentally, as many of you will know, the symbol of the EMCDDA is also a bridge.We are located in Lisbon, a beautiful city, and we now have a view from our office of both magnificentbridges over the Tejo river. Even if this were not the case it would still be an appropriate symbol for us, as the success of our work depends heavily on making connections— bridging the gap between different perspectives, both national and conceptual.When I look at the position of drugs research in Europe today,I can see some parallels with the position the EMCDDA found itself in 15 years ago.Our success has come from a long-term and developmental approach where progress is made through developing consensus and building partnership. These are important lessons to consider in our debate here.
Mr Costa, the Executive Director of the UNODC, in his addressto the EU’s National Drug Coordinators in May 2007 in Berlin, urged themto consider creating a ‘European Research Institute on Drug Abuse’.He argued that this would improve the scientific basis of drug policy on a Europe-wide scale.He specified that he saw this best achieved by strengthening existing organisations rather than creating new ones— and he may have even been thinking about my own organisation here. I appreciate Mr Costa’s comments but remain sceptical about the appropriateness of drugs research in Europebeing directed centrally. I am a great admirer of the work of NIDA in the USA and I know the report we have before us today has a very interesting analysis of both the USA and othernational approachesin supporting drugs research. But whilst I believe that linking and coordination mechanisms are essential,they must be configured to the context in which they will be applied. There are profound differences between the national contexts of the USA, CanadaorAustralia and our situation. We need a structural approach but it has to be sensitive to Europe’s uniquesocial andpolitical situation, and to its institutions.
When we look across Europe today, it is important to recognise that we have considerable collective resources — both scientifically andespecially in terms of innovative programme development.Currently, this expertise exists, metaphorically at least, on isolated islands of excellence.We need to construct bridges between these islands — to develop links and structures that allow us to benefit collectively from the considerable creative and technical potential that Europe possesses.This is achievable, but does require from all parties the commitment and vision to adopt a long-term and developmental perspective.
The Hungarian Nobel Prizewinning scientist, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, said that‘Research is four things: brains with which to think, eyes with which to see, machines with which to measure and, fourth, money’. And I do not think things have changed much in this respect. We live in difficult times today and we have to ensure that research spending is well targeted and productive. The drugs field is a complicated one in which you have to consider disciplines that range from biological to social and human sciences. At the EMCDDAwe find ourselves looking at research from the latest neurobiological studies at the same time as considering an economic analysis of drug markets. The span of this field is truly breathtaking. And it is not surprising that those tasked with funding research on drugs, especially at the European level,may struggle with identifying the projects to be supported. We need to develop a common understanding of where the priorities for our work lie and which activities benefit from beingcoordinatedat the European level.This conference can make an important contribution to the discussion, but we also need to consider what mechanisms will allow this processto be achieved in the future.
The ‘complexity’ problem is not faced just by those funding research. Researchers seeking to undertake European projects have not only to locate interested scientists in other countries, they also have to contend with application processes that appear complicated and time-consuming.Again, our task here is to ask how we can help bridge the gap between scientists working on similar topics across Europe and support thedevelopment of projects that are eligible for funding.If we wish to exploit Europe’s potential, we need to encourage the development of research capacity outside the relatively small number of existing research centres. This requires a research and development strategy that is sensitive to the need to nurture talent, encourage knowledge exchange and make links between established and developing centres of excellence.We already have good models available to guide us. I am thinking, for example,of the twinning projects set up between national focal points to assist in the accession process.
The drugs field is a highly politicised and ideological one. The strength and value of research in this area is that it has often led to approachesbeing adopted that at first sight appeared counter-intuitive or politically unattractive. To allow science to perform its role, we need to have clearly defined standards which cannot be compromised by political agendas. At the EMCDDA, we are fortunate to have a strong and independent Scientific Committee that is selected on one criterion only — scientific merit. The Committee provides a strong voice for scientific standards within our organisation which in my view is essential for the long-term credibility and impact of our work. We need to consider in our discussions here how we support and further develop standards in European drugs research.Without a commitment to scientific rigour and impartial analysis,the findings coming from investments in this area will be of limited value.
One of Europe’s strengths is the development of innovative programmes in the drug demand reduction field. This is to some extent a product of our diversity and the willingness of policymakers to explore new approaches.Europe, in this sense, is a formidable testing groundin which research evidence is a crucial driver. But too often we still fail to make the link between our research and programme development agendas. This means that programme effectiveness cannot always be judged and important learning is lost. Although it is now beginning to improve, the relative weakness of well-evaluated programmes in Europe in comparison with the USA, for example, is problematic in my view. Too often, the data we rely on has been generated in contexts that are very different to our own.We cannot simply assume that because a prevention or treatment programme has been found to be effective in Boston or Baltimore, it will work in the same way in Bratislava or Bilbao.
To exploit the potential of Europe as a research laboratory, we need not only coordination but also technical expertise and research infrastructures.Clearly, great differences currently exist between European Member States in these areas.Again,our experiences at the EMCDDA would suggest that given the right conditions, we can use the excellence that exists in parts of Europe to nurture and develop research capacity more generally. A good example here is the ESPAD study.This group of independent researchers, conducting school surveys in now over 30 countries, really demonstrates to me the benefits that successful European collaboration can bring. This can be seen not only in the improvements to the methodology used but also in the fact that combined and comparative analysis of the data provide new insights which would not be possible within a national exercise. There are also very practical advantages and economies of scale that a European perspective can bring: research and development costs can be shared; large samples can be generated that enable more powerful analysis, especially of rare events; and comparative studies are more easy to construct. These are all good reasons for a European-level research agenda. And if I can make a personal plea in support of one of the findings of the research study we are considering today — I would strongly endorse the conclusion that we need more longitudinal and cohort studies. These are highly informative and particularly appropriate for EU-level support.
Up until now I have been speaking about how we can stimulate European research efforts.I would like to focus my final words on an equally important topic and one that we have a special interest in at the EMCDDA. It is how we ensure that the findings from European research are made available to the policy and practice community. We have identified two key issues here. The first is to develop a dissemination strategy that is sensitive to the linguistic diversity of Europe. This is an area where the EMCDDA is particularly active but it remains a real obstacle for the dissemination of European research initiatives. The second issue is the need for communication tools that allow easy access to high-quality research findings. I will not say more on these topics as I know they are developed in the report and will be an important subject for discussion here. However, I do commit the EMCDDA to contributing actively in this area in the future.
Thankyou very much. I welcome any questions you may have.
1