|
 |
How to generate
innovation in the animal industry |
DOWNLOADABLE FILE
Without innovation in science there
can be no step forward:the lack of innovation means stagnation and
decline. These general statements, universally accepted, do
obviously apply to animal industry. Animal science is the source of
applied innovation for the livestock industry. Therefore, the
question is: how to stimulate innovation through new ideas and new
developments in the field of livestock science? The minimum
requirement, i.e. good education, must be provided by universities.
Are university courses in Europe at the same level as in America, in
Asia or more generally in the rest of the world? Of course, all
European university courses are not at the same level. There is a
large variability within and among EAAP member-countries , making it
difficult to establish if our universities provide better or poorer
education in relation to the USA universities, for instance. Anyhow,
one can say that the average level of education is good, and there
are also some cases of excellence among European universities having
nothing to envy to the best faculties in the academic world.
The second crucial factor in
encouraging innovation is the possibility to establish the proper
environment for stimulating many different points of view. Up to
now, the weakness of EC-funded project formats – like Networks of
Excellence and Integrated Projects – was that they allowed funding
only a few (often only one) projects in the same scientific field.
Such formats thus sharply reduces the number of possible approaches
to the same problem, diminishing consequently the opportunity to
stimulate innovation. Wisely enough, such projects are not included
anymore in the Seventh Framework Program.
Diversity is the right attitude in
order to promote innovation. A strongly standardized culture does
not allow “others” to exist or to produce new ideas. Any society –
even the scientific society – characterized by homogeneity and the
will to maintain achieved standards will not stimulate the
exploration of new ideas. On the contrary, an heterogeneous society
will encourage and accept new ideas. The EAAP scientific group is
clearly characterized by the diversity of national scientific
communities; diversity which is sometimes evident also within each
national community. When we work as ”Europe” and not as separate
national groups we do have the best conditions to build up an
“innovative environment”. Thanks to the European Commission’s
research funding schemes, the exchange of ideas and the mobility of
scientists became part of our professional lives. Nowadays, we think
more often in terms of Europe as a whole than in terms of single
countries. We should consider that the first European treaty was
signed exactly fifty years ago and as a consequence some activities
within the continent have inevitably become more “European” than
others. Science is one of the fields where the European Union has
invested more.
Another prerequisite for innovation
is allowing for the possibility to make mistakes. If scientists are,
in one way or another, not allowed to fail, they will constantly
choose the way of small but safe innovation. The rule of ‘taking one
step at the time’ is easier and safer than ‘taking the elevator’;
however, it slows down the progress of science and does not allow
exploring all possible prospects. We certainly need to learn from
our mistakes, but first we should be allowed to make mistakes. In
this respect, other cultures – especially Asian but also North
American – are generally much better than Europeans ones. In our
culture, the possibility to take risks is almost unknown, especially
as regards scientific research in the animal sector. Only few
scientists who enjoy significant international acknowledgment can
present innovative ideas, with the possibility to make mistakes, and
have their ideas accepted in scientific meetings (where selection is
sometimes done for the name of the author then for the idea of the
research). However, these people are almost exclusively senior
scientists. The consequence is that young scientists are hardly ever
encouraged to take the risk of presenting unusual and innovative
ideas. Unfortunately, experience is more important than imagination
for our culture. We should preferably set aside the prestige
attributed to age and create instead a better environment to welcome
innovative ideas by young scientists.
The possibility of sharing
information is another key factor for innovation. In a time when
every possible patentable research is protected, exchange of
information is often poor. Luckily enough, modern means of
communication like Internet offer the possibility of learning about
research activities and results from every part of the world in real
time, thus offsetting largely the limiting effect of patenting.
Another major element in creating
innovation is interdisciplinarity. However, for our culture, the
structure of many European universities includes a large number of
small departments, specialized in specific research fields and with
few points of contact with other units. There are cases of
scientists participating in extremely specialized scientific
meetings, which are always attended by the same small groups. Such
scientists, who enjoy being part of a restricted circle of “best
researchers”, will rarely produce innovation. Great ideas can only
be born through the debate with scientists of other disciplines and
by sharing knowledge about similar problems solved with apparently
revolutionary methods. This certainly does not happen in
“specialised meetings”. Here lies one of the key success factors of
the “large spectrum” animal science meetings organized by EAAP and
by the American Society for Animal Science. In the era of extremely
specialized disciplines, the increasing number of people attending
the EAAP and ASAS meetings shows that many scientists have
understood the importance of interdisciplinary debate.
The recent economic restrictions on
funds in support of research are also creating a vast damage to
innovation. The first cuts in investments in science were directed
to those research subjects with the largest risks of failure. Such
funding policy helps development rather than pure innovation.
Another obvious major risk is the career policy in many European
Universities. Researchers move fast up the career ladder mainly on
the basis of the number of scientific articles they produce.
However, what about the time to achieve continuous learning? Many
scientists complain about the impossibility to be constantly updated
with papers and books due to lack of time. Fortunately, this is not
always the case, but the problem is common and real. Lacking
adequate knowledge for planning future research is a major risk: if
research is not tightly connected to knowledge, the consequence is
poor research planning.
The great fragmentation of animal
industries is also an additional factor holding back innovation in
animal science. The inadequate possibility of animal industries to
invest money in “blue-sky thinking” is another impediment to
improvement. In the fields where animal industries are larger in
size, like specific sectors of animal nutrition or genetics, the
speed of innovation is higher.
Historically, those who have had the
ability to make great progress in science have always been people
equipped with an interdisciplinary approach, great erudition and
ability to take risks. Today, if we want animal science in Europe to
experience considerable innovation, we must create the proper
environment and reward those young researchers who have these
qualities.
Andrea Rosati
Secretary General of the EAAP
This page has been visited
times since 30-June-2007
Page last up-dated:
26/02/2008
