Memorandum submitted by the Royal Academy
of Engineering
1. Is the UK getting value for money from
the Framework Programmes?
1.1 Evidence submitted in support of this
response showed that opinions vary widely regarding this issue.
Whilst many responses were positive, nearly half of the respondents
believed that, despite the fact that the UK gets its financial
share from the EU, it does not get value for money from the Framework
Programmes. There was a great deal of uncertainty regarding the
meaning of value in this context. There were many different experiences
in particular sectors of industry and comparable groups in academia,
and Fellows' personal experience also varied widely. It was generally
accepted, even in positive responses, that the UK has not generated
as much value from the EU Framework Programmes as it could have
done, and that there is much room for improvement.
1.2 According to statistics[2],
the UK as a whole is winning more of the Framework Programme funds
than it contributes to the programme budget. The language advantage
coupled with need has ensured vigorous participation in the programme,
although other European Union countries (such as Germany and France)
are becoming more successful and thus strong competitors for the
funds. However, this measure is viewed as a restricted definition
of "value" as it takes no account of the intrinsic quality
of the funded research, the relevance of the funded programmes
to ongoing research, and the usefulness of the generated results.
1.3 Additionally, this measure of value
shows no consideration of the areas of research that are funded.
It was suggested that certain sectors, such as the aeronautics
sector, do well in securing funding from the Framework Programme,
whereas others, such as marine science and technology, fare less
successfully. It was noted that the EU requirement for dissemination
of results restricts the scope of research funded, constraining
it to large integrated projects and collaborative, pre-competitive
areas. There was a belief that in the case of collaborative work,
the UK researchers tended to do most of the work regarding the
application. There was also a concern that EU money is not sought
by first rank researchers, who tend to apply to the Research Councils
instead.
1.4 Fellows drew attention to the fact that
the statistics indicate that UK universities are very good at
securing EU funding but UK companies are less successful (when
compared with the EU average), and it was suggested that industry's
failure probably compromises the economic benefit to the UK. In
industrial terms the long time between submission of a proposal
and gaining funds often means that it is not a favoured approach
to securing funding.
1.5 There was a widely held view that "value
for money" judgement ought to include some consideration
of efficiency, and there seems to be scope for improvement in
this with regards to all areas of the grant application and making
process, as the concept of the Framework Programme requires sharper
decision-making and speedier implementation. The process of applying
for grants was noted as being bureaucratic, cumbersome and time
consuming, and it is hard to prove that the return is worth the
effort of submission, particularly when the application process
is highly competitive, with a high failure rate. Additionally,
the issue of overhead costs was repeatedly raised: these have
to be met by the applicant, leading to suggestions that they effectively
subsidise the funded research as the grants do not cover infrastructure
or application costs. It was noted that it is very easy to get
discouraged, especially if a newcomer.
1.6 It was acknowledged that, whilst the
process for obtaining funding is transparent on paper, there are
skills required to formulate a proposal correctly, and these necessitate
good contacts and consultation with Brussels. There was a feeling
that UK applicants were not as adept at playing the system as
some of their European counterparts. Although interest in this
Programme is enormous, many applicants are not aware of what is
available, unfamiliar with the time scales and essential lobbying
necessary, and not aggressive enough in their applications: as
a result proposals can be poorly budgeted and presented.
2. Is the Government doing enough to promote
the participation of UK research establishments and industry in
the Sixth Framework Programme and the European Research Area?
2.1 Less than half of the respondents were
aware that the Government actively promotes the participation
of academia, industry, and the few remaining research establishments
in the Sixth Framework programme. It was generally thought that
whatever publicity was provided by the Government was given to
the UK focal points for information (regarding the frameworks)
instead of actively promoting participation. In contrast, those
Fellows who were positive about the Government's efforts cited
well attended meetings, and the setting up of groups and National
contact points to promote participation, as successful Government
initiatives. The majority of the respondents believed successful
bids depended upon individual initiatives, good contacts in Europe,
and the use of contacts in Brussels: there was a tacit agreement
that successful bids generally involved no contact with the Government
at all.
2.2 Criticism of the Government's activities
in this area included the observation that any promotion was unguided,
uncoordinated and insufficient: the occasional seminars and training
events, based mainly in London, were criticized for providing
information which was already well known to previous applicants,
without adding new insights. There was a feeling that any advice
given by the Government came too late, after the point where bids
would have to be submitted to ensure success. There was a concern
that the little advice given was geared towards academia, and
that little relevant information was reaching industry, particularly
SMEs. However, it was acknowledged that the Government faced some
difficulties in the promotion of the framework, as they had to
present programmes which were often in flux until the contracting
of the responses to the first call for proposals, making it difficult
to present detailed, relevant information.
2.3 It was reported that other organisations,
such as the UK Research Office (UKRO), and the Commission itself,
provided extensive and useful accessible information regarding
the Framework Programme, and were very successful in promoting
it, so further promotion by the Government was unnecessary. It
was also acknowledged that many Academic institutions have administrative
units, which promote participation by academics, and so Government
participation in this area was not needed.
2.4 A number of suggestions were made concerning
ways in which the Government could promote participation, should
it choose to do so. Supportive comprehensive information resources,
such as websites, may be helpful, to work in tandem with the various
information already available. Financial support for international
travel and networking events would help all sectors to develop
more and better projects and take up more opportunities. Grants
to cover the cost of preparing the proposal (which is not covered,
even in successful bids) was seen as a major way in which the
Government could increase participation: an additional overhead
contribution could be provided to make participation "cost
neutral". Additionally, the Government should drive towards
a simpler, faster system. Fellows noted that they certainly did
not want targets for participation.
3. Is the process for obtaining EU funds
sufficiently transparent and straightforward?
3.1 It was generally agreed that the rules
for application are straightforward and sufficiently transparent:
an improvement on previous Programmes in this regard. However,
it was repeatedly stressed that the process of assembling, submitting,
and justifying a costed proposal could be extremely time consuming,
complex, expensive, and bureaucratic, and that the level of effort
and persistence required was daunting. This was the major complaint
of the Fellows, although it was noted that such detailed applications
were probably necessary to ensure a transparent, fair, and objective
selection process. The long delay between applying and receiving
funding was also seen to be problematic.
3.2 However, many Fellows noted that there
was a definite skill to mounting successful proposals, and that
it took considerable time to learn how to "play" the
system. Success in writing proposals often required a deeper understanding
of the culture behind the words, for example understanding which
topics and teamings were acceptable to the assessors. Those experienced
in formulating bids had much greater chances of winning funding
than inexperienced applicants, even if the rules were adhered
to. In this sense the system is not transparent.
3.3 Additionally, the procedures for allocating
the funds are obfuscated. The basis for selection of priority
areas for funding is far from clear, with no indication given
of the level of consultation with the relevant industries regarding
needs and priorities. The criteria for the selection of successful
applications are also not clear, nor is the experience and expertise
of the assessors made known. The quality of the comments on successful
and unsuccessful projects is often very poor, leading to doubts
about the selection process. It seems to some Fellows that there
are many vested interests that influence the fine details of programmes,
and behind the scenes politics affect decisions regarding funding.
There was a concern that there was a bias towards projects that
reflect politically desirable objectives, such as the inclusion
of institutions from certain states in the bid, regardless of
the merits of the institution. The actual allocation of funds
is therefore seen as being far from straightforward and transparent.
4. Is there continuity between successive
framework programmes?
4.1 Opinion regarding this question was
split. Half of the respondents believed that there appears to
be some degree of continuity, particularly in thematic areas:
there was an understanding that the underlying topics addressed
were continued by the different frameworks. However, it was noted
that successive programmes often fail to benefit from previous
mistakes, repeating them in future programmes.
4.2 Those who did not believe that there
was continuity cited the loss of specific areas of funding: it
was noted that insufficient funding led to a stronger focus on
some research areas, whereas others were unfortunately lost from
the Programme. The balance between open and prescriptive work
programmes was also seen to change unpredictably from framework
to framework without a clear direction. An emphasis on constant
change was seen as negative, where good parts of previous frameworks,
such as the capping of funding for standard projects, were lost
(the major discontinuity between FP5 and FP6 was seen to be the
shift towards very large grants). The large gap in time-frame
between FP5 and FP6 programmes was also seen as problematic. Also,
the abrupt change in administrative and management procedures
from FP5 to FP6 was seen to cause problems for many participants:
it was suggested that the "new instruments" used for
evaluating bids represent an unusual approach to research funding,
which may require extensive institutional changes for applicants.
There was a worry that many current contributors to the programme
may not be equipped for handling the new instruments adequately.
4.3 However, this change between programmes
was also viewed as a deliberate and necessary force to try to
create real excellence rather than just another way of funding
academics: priorities change, so perhaps should the programmes.
But lack of continuity was also viewed as a failure to recognise
that successful research generally needs a significant period
for development and widespread take up.
5. What is the potential impact of EU enlargement,
and what changes are needed for Framework seven?
5.1 A few of the Fellows believed that the
impact of enlargement would not be significant, as many central
and eastern European Countries were involved in FP5 and were successful
partners in many consortia, and although FP6 will provide better
funding and equal status for these countries, it should not have
much impact on the existing funding programme. However, the majority
agreed that the accession states will become more involved in
the programmes, and this would result in potential problems regarding
funding allocation, project management, and the quality of research
undertaken.
5.2 It was predicted that there will be
a requirement to include a series of new researchers from accession
countries as a strategic part of a bid. This was met with criticism,
as there was a fear that these bids would be accepted with less
stringent criteria than normal to fulfil political quotas, when
the criteria for participation in programmes must be the ability
of the participant to make a relevant and effective contribution.
There was concern that this could lead to the dilution of the
technical content of proposals, and dual standards being applied.
However, wider co-operation could also be advantageous in the
long run, as different countries would bring their expertise in
various sectors into the academic community, although the fragmentation
that exists in European research establishments must be addressed
if Europe is to benefit from the skills and resources in these
new countries.
5.3 It was agreed that the effect of enlargement
is wholly negative for research funding: competition for funds
will be greater as more and more people will want to participate
and cooperate. Although this participation is essential for multidisciplinary
projects and the spreading of expertise and standards across Europe,
enlargement will need to accompanied by a larger budget. There
was a worry that this would be at the cost of UK returns.
5.4 The inclusion of new countries was expected
to cause confusion, both in the preparation of bids, and the management
of larger projects. It was noted that all sorts of unwritten rules
appear to exist regarding the inclusion of candidate countries.
EU enlargement will have a serious impact on the organisation
and management of projects, increasing the burden on institutions.
This may be somewhat offset by proposals to fully fund some management
functions.
5.5 It was suggested that the changes between
Frameworks five and six have been fairly major. It would thus
seem appropriate to see how these changes are accommodated before
considering Framework seven. The need for clear structures for
guaranteeing correct and beneficial use of the money will become
even greater.
6. (a) Is the process for the selection
of priority areas and the awarding of funding to projects fair?
6.1 Many of the Fellows believed that the
selection of priority areas was fair, or as fair as can be possible.
The EU were seen to be very open to guidance from the various
industry groups, although there was a call for wider consultation
to establish priority areas: the process of selecting areas of
priority is not at all transparent. It was noted that the Commission
has to be careful not to be overly influenced by powerful academics
or large industries lobbying for their own areas. There was also
a concern that the selection process of priority areas is mainly
driven by the European Parliament and Council, and that it is
designed to fit Europe's political agenda. Additionally, there
was a suggestion that the selection of priority areas is not a
successful way of eliciting bids: innovation is not predictable,
and Programmes, which are too prescriptive risk under-performance
when compared to other means of selection.
6.2 It was also stressed that definition
of "fair" was important: if "fair" means that
money should be divided equally, then research funding shouldn't
be fair: it should be awarded to the best projects in the priority
areas. It was agreed that the process of judgement by peer review
is the only viable process with which to do this.
6.3 Again, the process of awarding funding
to projects was not transparent, although rigorous evaluation
of the proposals by experts was taken to be a fair manner of selection.
The awarding of funding is often dependent on the skill and effort
of the project promoter: it was noted that average proposals can
be funded if they are well promoted.
(B)
IS THE
BALANCE BETWEEN
PURE AND
APPLIED RESEARCH
RIGHT?
6.4 Opinion regarding this issue was split:
half of the Fellows agreed that whilst the balance between pure
and applied research is constantly and openly debated, there seems
to be an acceptable and reasonable balance.
6.5 Those who did not believe that a suitable
balance had been reached were concerned that the Framework Programme
is focussing more and more on applied research. However, the aim
of the EU to create the world's most important trading-block was
seen to be a reason to focus more on applied than pure research.
(C)
ARE THE
TIME FRAMES
FOR FUNDING
PROJECTS ADEQUATE?
6.6 The length of time that projects are
funded for was generally agreed to be adequate. In most instances
it is for the coordinator to decide and negotiate the funding
period. Typically projects are funded from one to four years,
with a norm of three. However, delays in awarding contracts can
make forward planning difficult, and the heavy reporting requirements
of the scheme can mean a great deal of time is spent dealing with
bureaucracy.
6.7 However, the trend in EU funding has
been away from the long-term and towards more industrially-relevant,
short-term projects. It is difficult to get pure, long term research
funding. This has made academic participation more difficult,
and should concern the UK (since academics make far better use
of EU funding than UK industry). An additional problem is that
short term funding contracts can affect the appointment and retention
of project staff. A good balance will have to be found for shorter
and longer projects to allow for the needs of different sectors
and different types of projects: the move of Framework six to
support a great deal of fundamental, long-term research seems
sensible.
6.8 Regarding the time frames for particular
parts of the funding process, it was felt that one problem is
that there is a long hiatus while a Framework Programme is being
conceived, followed by a scramble for projects to submit an application,
as the bureaucracy involved in preparing a grant application is
large. (It is also regrettable that in the first call a large
amount of effort will go in to preparing full proposals, which
will be wasted, since the rejection rate will be high. This could
be avoided by implementing a more stream-lined system.) The time
between submission of the proposal and signing of the contracts
is too long: in some cases the contract negotiation period can
be lengthy. The lapse time between acceptance of the proposal
and the project launch can be impossibly long, as can delays in
reimbursing participants, especially for small and medium-size
enterprises (SMEs).
7. (a) What is the best role of EU research
institutions such as the Joint Research Centre?
7.1 The JRC is the only EU research institution.
Its role is clearly set out in its mission statement and rigorous
arrangements exist to ensure that it adheres to its agreed mission.
Opinion regarding this institution was divided: although many
Fellows had ideas regarding the scope of work such an institution
should cover, many held negative viewpoints towards the JRC and
similar institutions.
7.2 The JRC has attractions as a European
institution with a European identity. It was suggested that their
best role is to house such experimental facilities as cannot be
afforded or utilised by individual Member States. These could
be used to house large, or very long-term projects, which could
not easily be done except on a pan-European scale. Their well-equipped
facilities should be made available to other research groups from
all over Europe. These facilities could become catalysts for international
co-operation in their areas of research, which will allow the
UK to learn from experiences of other European countries. Additionally,
such an institution could facilitate academic and industrial networks,
provide technical advise regarding proposed legislation, and produce
unbiased results that can aid in the formation of Policy.
7.3 With regards to areas of study, it was
recommended that the best role for the JRC is to study areas of
science that are independently focused, have little commercial
attraction, but which are nevertheless important to social progress
and environmental performance and would benefit both industry
and the community at large.
7.4 Many Fellows were not sure of the benefit
of these centres. The fact that Universities mainly do fundamental
research means that there would be no guarantee that the research
from such a centre would be of high quality, and there is a danger
that they would be biased towards certain subject areas. There
was a concern that such institutions would merely provide another
layer of administration, and that their remit may be far too broad
to be effective for individual industries. They would need to
work very closely with industrial and academic sectors to avoid
becoming authoritarian dispensers of funds with their own, disconnected,
agenda[3].
(B) ARE
THEY COST
EFFECTIVE?
7.5 It was a commonly held view, in both
academia and industry, that they are not cost effective, or as
cost effective as they could be (but apparently there have been
some recent improvements in this area since the JRC was restructured).
The cost effectiveness of such an institution will always be very
hard to establish since the outputs should be social and environmental
rather than commercial, and it depends on what criteria they will
be judged. One comparison would be to ask whether the work would
be better done inside the institution, or in another academic
or industrial setting. Many Fellows believed that money used for
the JRC could often have been better spent by funding work in
other, established, institutions.
8. WHAT
SHOULD UK POLICY
BE TOWARDS
THE PROPOSALS
FOR A
EUROPEAN RESEARCH
COUNCIL?
8.1 There was a cautious agreement that
the UK should participate in the formation, funding, and running
of such an institution. If an ERC is going to be established,
the UK has no choice but to be an active, enthusiastic, and strong
supporter, so as to ensure a chance of participation in the future.
The Government will then need to play a very pro-active role to
ensure UK interests are protected and research activities are
retained in the UK. An ERC could be potentially valuable, if it
complemented the Framework Programme, funded research properly,
and had a simple, robust mandate.
8.2 However, many Fellows had significant
reservations about such an institution, doubting that it could
perform a useful function. Although theoretically a good idea,
in practical terms it could be constrained by internal and national
politics. Additionally, the role of an EU council is not clear
and many would be suspicious of any additional layer of bureaucracy.
An ERC could cause serious problems for UK Research Councils,
as it could be seen as an excuse for UK Government to reduce the
already low sums that go to support research. There is a concern
that the money will be wasted, and like other centrally funded
EU activities disappear into un-auditable, inappropriate schemes.
9. IS
THE ALLOCATION
OF FUNDING
THROUGH THE
EURATOM PROGRAMME
RIGHT?
9.1 There were no responses to this question.
January 2003
2 The Framework Programme management office were not
able to provide accurate statistics regarding the amount of funding
flowing to each Member State. However, Save British Science were
able to compile some statistics which suggest that the UK may
receive more than it contributes, see http://www.savebritishscience.org.uk/texts/documents/2002/SBS0207.pdf Back
3
Note by witness: Many Fellows were not sure of the benefit
of the Joint Research Centre. With its new focus on policy making,
there was no guarantee that the research commissioned from the
Joint Research Centre would be as fundamental or of high "pure
research" quality as that from Universities and there was
a danger that it would be biased towards certain subject areas.
There was a concern that the Institutes comprising the Joint Research
Centre would introduce an additional layer of administration and
that their remit may be far too broad to be effective for individual
industries. Back
| 
