Memorandum submitted by Professor Gerry
Gilmore, Professor of Experimental Philosophy, Institute of Astronomy,
University of Cambridge
Evidence requested from Professor Gerry Gilmore,
Professor of Experimental Philosophy, Institute of Astronomy,
Cambridge University from the perspective of his involvement with
the EU in the following roles:
(i) As Chair of OPTICON, the EU-funded Coordination
Network for Optical-Infrared Astronomy. OPTICON brings together
the main funding agencies, astronomical observatory operators
and main database providers in European astronomy. (cf www.astro-opticon.org).
OPTICON initiates and leads several very large EU-funded development
projects, which are providing major opportunities in future infrastructure
development;
(ii) As Deputy Chair of EARA, the European
Association for Research in Astronomy, a formal linking of major
astrophysical research institutes in Cambridge (UK), Paris (Fr),
Leiden (Nl), Munich (Germany), and Tenerife (Spain). EARA stimulates
funding proposals by the partners to various Marie Curie research
and training opportunities, with considerable success to date;
(iii) As Deputy Director of the Institute
of Astronomy, Cambridge, a department with active involvement
in many EU-funded research and training programmes;
Is the UK getting value for money from the Framework
Programmes?
1. Consider in turn individual positions,
research networks, and technology networks.
2. For Marie Curie funded individual research
positions, both for (PhD) students and postdoctoral fellows, there
is a huge surplus of applications from young scientists wishing
to come to the UK. We routinely receive many more applications
than we can accept, by a large factor. Is this good, and why?
We ask applicants, so this response is based on the self-selected
sample of people who wish to come to the UK, though this is a
majority.
3. The number of applications is large for
several reasons: partly language—English is the international
lingua franca of science and technology, and students value the
opportunity to perfect their language skills; partly cultural—UK
university towns are known to be multi-cultural places, with easy
integration for outsiders; but mostly is a reflection of the academic
excellence of the best UK Universities. The status of a connection
with the more academically elite UK Universities is a significant
career advantage, as it reflects a certain standard, as noted
below.
4. The acceptance rate is low for two reasons.
First, we, and other departments, apply a filter based on academic
merit, which is higher than that always applied by the EU selection
process. The EU has as part of its motivation increased mobility,
and so will favour people from relatively weak academic communities,
as they will perhaps gain most benefit. Our primary research interest
for postgraduate students is in maximizing quality, not quantity.
We are heavily oversubscribed, and do not wish to lower standards.
[I note the apparent inconsistency with open and wide access policies
for undergraduates: however teaching is the university role, not
research, and UK citizens are involved. The same tensions, however,
apply.]
5. Second, a major difficulty with EU-funded
research positions is their extremely low rate of overhead. UK
university actual costs correspond to an overhead rate which is
at least that provided by the UK research councils (46%). The
EU rate is typically much less. Thus, we as a department effectively
subsidize this research.
6. An historical problem, now resolved,
but occasionally a concern, is salary rates. Unless local salary
rates are used, gross disparities between colleagues doing the
same job can arise.
7. In spite of these challenges, our experience
is consistent with the summary statistic, that the UK is the favoured
destination of choice for foreign graduate students and post-graduates
in Europe, with 32% of all non-national EU students being in the
UK. This is a net benefit to the UK, not least since some (eg,
myself) stay.
8. Research Networks: The situation for
research training networks is similar to that for individual positions,
but much preferred by us. In this system a research team is funded
to select and hire its own postdoctoral fellows, or graduate students.
Again overheads are too low, but the quality threshold and detailed
work scheme becomes the responsibility of the local scientists.
The UK has an excellent record in being members of, and often
in leading, these networks.
9. A weakness is continuity, with most contracts
being short compared to the natural timescale of a major research
project.
10. Coordination networks, Infrastructure
Access, technology development funding. These have through FP5
been independent contracts, but merge under FP6. They can provide
substantial funding (50% to 100%) of a project cost, and have
proved extremely valuable for the community. The networks, such
as OPTICON, are becoming the primary information link between
the research community and the EU. Under FP6 they will be a primary
financing and policy interface. The UK has a remarkable success
in these networks. Of the 25 current Infrastructure Cooperation
Networks, the UK leads nine.
11. These network leads are well distributed
in the UK (Bristol, Cardiff (2), Cambridge, Daresbury Lab (2),
Edinburgh, Essex, and National History Museum), and position the
UK well to benefit from the EU resources, to ensure that EU policy
implementation responds to expressed community need, and to lead
the determination of EU-wide future developments.
Is the Government doing enough to promote the
participation of UK research establishments and industry in FP6
and the ERA?
12. I speak only for research establishments.
The challenges in involving UK industry in research projects,
even when these projects will clearly lead to major industrial
contract opportunities, are legion, but not specific to EU-funded
opportunities.
13. Much interaction between research teams
and the EU is at such a small and specific level (individual grants,
small teams, etc) that no more is required than information on
how to write and submit proposals. The EU does this (now) rather
well. In the UK, the research councils, through the UK Research
Office, provide very helpful digested summaries of the mass of
information and documentation which exists. Specifically for astronomy,
PPARC is very helpful and pro-active in advertising opportunities.
14. At more strategic levels, such as the
Coordination Networks, interaction is direct with the EU FP5/6
officers in Brussels. Most are very helpful, and dedicated to
their jobs. Some few are outstanding. This inevitably favours
the old and senior, as we have been around long enough to know
and be known, but this is (almost) unavoidable given the size
of the community.
15. Overall, UK research establishments
are well informed of opportunity, and (at least in my subject)
well-supported by the research councils. We are limited by resource
limits and exhaustion, not ignorance. Were some small amount of
UK matching funds made available for at least the larger EU grants,
to provide funding for the considerable administrative costs,
it would be a big help.
Is the process of obtaining EU funds sufficiently
transparent and straightforward?
16. The process is certainly potentially
transparent, in that vast numbers of documents, reviews, and such
like are available. Should anyone want them. In practise, there
is clear and continuing confusion over the many different methods
used to implement different aspects of FP6. It is regrettable
that so many different administrative arrangements are required.
Having sifted the information, and (easier) spoken to people on
the allocation panels, and the EU staff, I think the process is
as transparent as it seems. There is no doubt about the integrity
of those involved.
17. Straightforward is not a term routinely
applicable to interactions with the EU. The administrative load
is heavy, with a (frankly absurd) tendency to minute detail over
tiny sums of money. Their concern for accountability, and to avoid
French dentists, goes too far. We are promised better in FP6.
Is there continuity between successive FPs?
18. Not much. This is partly desirable,
as the rate of growth and development between successive FPs is
still large. Continuity helps planning, but can stifle innovation.
19. The real problem is short-term contracts.
Contracts matching the timescale of major research projects are
not possible, as they can substantially exceed the lifetime of
an FP. ( I appreciate this is a problem with UK government spending
reviews too.) This has a very major detrimental effect on the
biggest and grandest research. For example, Europe currently is
in a big battle with the US for world leadership in understanding
the early universe, and the nature of existence. Projects like
this take a decade. While technology funding is stable, and available,
on those timescales, no suitable scientific support is possible
from the EU, fragmenting the ERA and diluting potential excellence.
What is the potential impact of EU enlargement?
20. A guide is provided by the recent scientific
history of Spain and Portugal. The initial impact is small, as
the competitive scientific community in most new members is small,
though with some conspicuous exceptions. Spain and Portugal have
grown rapidly over a generation to become high-quality and large
communities. Especially Spain. This was achieved by concentrating
on a subset of subjects and opportunities, and ensuring consistent
long-term stable support for those priorities. This was provided
by structural funds, and active support from the scientific communities
in other countries.
21. The UK was prominent in that academic
support, through opportunities for students to train in the UK,
through simple support, such as the British Council, and through
various academic exchange schemes (eg, Royal Society). The sum
effect of these was to strengthen the new community, and to provide
a generation of leaders in that community who strongly support
and appreciate the UK. Very valuable seed-corn investment.
What changes are needed for Framework 7?
22. Much is good, all can be improved. OPTICON
is working with the commission to define specific improvements
at the detailed implementation level. A few specific points are
noted above, especially that of timescales.
23. The biggest single need is to have substantial
EU capital support for (a very few) world-class facilities. The
European Large Telescope is an example: a facility which would
establish Europe as world-leader in astrophysics, the subject
which is the single highest priority in attracting young people
to study physical sciences and mathematics.
24. Inevitably some national science budgets
are under pressure when others are relatively well-funded, so
that initiation of real major Europe-wide projects by the sum
of many national contributions is almost impossible. This is where
the EU could, and should, make the ERA a reality.
Is the selection of priority subjects fair, balanced,
and timely?
25. There are many factors involved in selection
of priorities, most of which are subjective or poorly quantified.
The present priorities are mostly directed to short-intermediate
term applications, with very little fundamental science. Is this
wise? This is a complex and poorly quantified subject! Basic physics
and astrophysics discovered electricity, electronics, laser scanners,
computers, radar, and most recently the WWW. These unexpected
outcomes are the things which really re-shape society and life.
Such basic issues are unpredictable, but are not a large aspect
of the FP6 programme.
26. Applied and near-market issues are prominent.
Europe (and the UK) has a poor recent record at building industry
on fundamental advances. It remains a political choice if industry
should be subsidized to apply research—the FP6 approach—or
if only basic research should be funded by government. Some balance
is needed, since there is a case to argue that Europe's scientists
are better at science than Europe's industrialists are at developing
markets and services. It is less obvious that the science budget
should provide that support for industry.
27. The challenge for applied science is
that the budget in FP6 is small compared to that required to,
eg, develop a new aerospace or medical technology. Is it enough
to make a difference? Real changes in research methodology or
practice will not follow the few MEuro per project available in
FP6, as this is a tiny part of the real RTD cost.
28. One hopes small "bonus" funds
may catalyze a new development, but in that case one must accept
up front that only a tiny fraction of funded projects are likely
to show an assessable productive outcome. Still, if even one of
those is comparable to discovering electricity, it is a good investment.
What is the best role of Institutions such as
the JRC?
29. The goals of the JRC are certainly commendable.
I have no direct knowledge of their activities.
What should UK policy be towards a European Research
Council?
30. A feature of European science is the
subsidiarity of EU projects to national priorities. Experience
in research shows that the most effective, as opposed to efficient,
way to proceed is to fund as many different approaches and ideas
as is possible. This is a major strength of having many independent
national agencies. Competition and diversity encourage quality.
But not in excess.
31. In some subjects (physics at CERN, astronomy
at ESO, fusion at JET . . .) the cost of a single facility exceeds
national resources. For these cases some means to establish a
Europe-wide agreement inside the scientific community is essential.
Some means to encourage that agreement by funding its outcome
is essential.
32. The ERC could take up this role. Various
other organizations have attempted this (eg, the ESF), but without
the mix of both academic excellence and real money in consequence
of an agreement, nothing is achieved.
33. A role model might be the US "decadal
reviews", which establish priorities for support of major
new facilities, and which are used as the basis of NASA and NSF
funding decisions. These work because they are very public, they
are led by distinguished scientists, and they actively involve
the whole scientific community. They are not "top-down".
Similar, and rather successful, mechanisms for developing priorities
exist in France.
34. Such a role is possible if and only
if the ERC has the respect of the scientists, and if the ERC leads
to new money. Perhaps the ERC might be the natural body to set
relative priorities for the major EU-funded new facilities proposed
in para 23. It will work only if led by, and responsive to, scientists.
The Director General positions of CERN and ESO, held by senior
scientists on leave from universities, might be role models.
35. An ERC will be useless if merely a duplicate
of current national schemes. It could be extremely successful
if it concentrates on the (financially or temporally) biggest
projects and concepts.
EURATOM
36. I have no direct knowledge of EURATOM
activities.
Other significant issues
37. A potentially serious limitation on
UK benefit from, and active involvement in, EU funded activities
is that there is a risk that a national organization involved
in its core activity in an funded EU project will have the EU
funds removed from its budget by the UK government. This possibility
has been raised in early discussions coordinating the UK's observatories
and technological development programmes inside FP6. Such "negative
leverage" is seriously destructive of active UK leadership
in Europe's scientific future.
38. I would specifically like to recommend
that the committee ensure that UK success in attracting EU support
be recognized as success, and that there be no financial penalties.
Ideally, additional central funds to reward success, and provide
adequate overhead levels, should be made available. These measures
would be a substantial step forward in ensuring that the UK gets
value for money from the EU FP6.
8 January 2003
| 
