Memorandum submitted by the University
of Plymouth
Is the UK is getting value for money from the
Framework Programmes?
Overall, probably not. Although there are clear
benefits from international collaboration and working with European
partners, there is frequently a failure to effectively exploit
research outcomes. This is partly due to poor integration and
communication between universities, business and industry and
the lack of proactive links with regional/central government agencies.
In addition, the 20% overhead rate on Framework
Programmes grants is clearly inadequate. The Transparency Review
indicates that University overhead costs are typically 200% of
direct costs. On the basis that the EU should fund 50% of project
costs, an overhead rate of 50% should be paid.
Is the Government is doing enough to promote the
participation of UK research establishments and industry in the
Sixth Framework Programme and the European Research Area?
The UK approach seems to be reactive rather
than proactive. The cost of preparing an application for FP6 will
be considerable, possibly £10K per application. Assuming
there will be a success rate of 20%, on average, institutions
will need to find from their own resources, £50K per successful
application. Financial support from Central Government to cover
these costs would provide enormous encouragement to participation.
Is the process for obtaining EU funds sufficiently
transparent and straightforward?
The process itself is transparent but little
about the EU is straightforward. The scale of projects to be supported
under FP6 will make application preparation highly complex, academically
and administratively. Finding information on the Cordis site (and
other EU web sites) is not straightforward.
The information days are well-organised, very
informative and key programme administrators are very approachable.
Is there continuity between successive framework
programmes?
There is some continuity of topic areas but
an appropriate number of new areas are included in FP6, reflecting
new and emerging research challenges. There is an unwillingness
to provide extra funds to projects for extensions or obvious second
phases without a significant novel element. The Commission expects
projects to have a built-in element of sustainability" with
consortia aiming to be commercially supported for further project
work on completion of a contract, however this is not always possible.
Successive framework programmes have seen change
to rules about eligibility of partners, match funding, reporting
timetable, evaluation, deliverables etc. Many of these changes
have been introduced to overcome past problems but this can make
life difficult for researchers and experience in one programme
can be a disadvantage in the next one.
What is the potential impact of EU enlargement,
and what changes are needed for Framework 7?
One consequence of an enlarged community may
be to reinforce the policy of allocating funds to very large consortia.
Many people believe the scale of partnerships proposed to be unworkable.
An enlarged EU will require a major education/training programme
for the new members to explain how EU research projects work on
all levels, including administration, evaluation, dissemination
and commercial exploitation.
Without careful planning, an enlarged EU could
lead to problems of fraud and wasted resources. There is a danger
that this potential problem will be countered by even more bureaucracy.
The whole process should be simplified in an
enlarged community.
Is the process for the selection of priority areas
and the awarding of funding to projects fair: is the balance between
pure and applied research right; and are the time frames for funding
projects adequate?
The processes used to select Framework Programme
priorities are not transparent and so it is difficult to comment
on whether they are fair.
One of the strengths of the Framework Programmes
is the targeting and promotion of research which falls between
pure research and traditional commercial R&D.
The timeframe between calls for proposals and
submission dates are too tight given the complexity of Framework
Programme funding. The timeframe for the evaluation of proposals
is too long and should be reduced in order to preserve the currency
and relevance of research.
What is the best role of EU research institutions
such as the Joint Research Centre; are they cost effective?
No comment.
What should UK policy be towards the proposals
for a European Research Council?
The creation of such a Council would provide
an opportunity for European research to improve its competitiveness.
The policy of the UK should be to support such a development provided
it is based upon an independent structure aimed at the promotion
of curiosity-driven projects of high scientific level, especially
within the emerging fields of science. The creation of the Council
would need to be in addition to, rather than a substitute for,
Framework Programme Research activity.
Is the allocation of funding through the EURATOM
programme right?
Until the Government publishes the Energy White
Paper it will remain unclear how appropriate the EURATOM programme
is to the UK's needs.
January 2003
| 
