Memorandum submitted by the Institute
of Physics
1. Is the UK getting value for money from
the Framework Programmes?
In financial terms, UK researchers have received
slightly more from Framework Programme (FP) 5 in project funding
than the Government has contributed to the budget (contribution
of 15.8% of FP5 budget, return of 17.7% in form of research contracts
awarded). Whether this represents value for money is difficult
to ascertain, as the costs incurred in preparing proposals and
in extracting full payment from the European Commission (EC) are
not taken into account.
Many UK universities that have applied for EU
funds and that have faired quite well may have lost money as it
is rare for all the overheads either to be covered (eg difficulties
in funding equipment, especially for physics departments) or as
a result of the EC's rather narrow views on eligible costs. This
is still an issue and may reflect the different funding patterns
in other Member States.
It may be worth attempting to benchmark recent
FP against other large funding programmes, for example those run
by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute
of Health (NIH) in the United States, in order to assess value
for money.
It is also a concern that UK companies appear
half-hearted about European Union (EU) programmes, which has resulted
in a Brussels-based view of priorities that are not always best
suited to the UK and to projects in which there is no UK industrial
partner to a UK university. UK science has too often been exploited
and developed elsewhere in the EU.
2. Is the Government doing enough to promote
the participation of UK research establishments and industry in
the 6th Framework Programme and the European Research Area?
The participation of UK universities is promoted
by information provided at workshops (organised under the auspices
of OST, DTI and other Government departments and agencies) and
by responsive-mode funding through the UK Research Councils in
the form of travel grants to individual research staff in universities.
These efforts seem reasonable, but it appears that extra effort
may be required in 2003, if take-up of FP6 funding by researchers
is to be as great as in previous Frameworks.
Most of the information used by UK universities
comes from organisations such as the UK Research Office (UKRO)
and the EC itself. The information provided is both extensive
and useful not only for gaining a picture of what FP6 is like,
but also suitable for promoting FP6 to academics. Information
provided through the National Contact Points, such as the National
Physical Laboratory (NPL) via their information days and courses
is also useful.
However, promotion of UK activities in Europe
could be improved. At the recent large conference/exhibition in
Copenhagen to launch the IST Programme, most of the European countries
had representatives on a stand with some giving presentations
of capabilities, national programmes, etc. The UK simply had a
very small poster display with apparently no one in attendance,
no literature and no presentations.
Overall briefing and consultation with companies
has improved a lot over recent years but there are still problems.
Many of the old UK research establishments have been privatised.
This has led to a proper attention to costs and in many cases
to lower participation levels as laboratories realise that they
will lose money in EU work and, especially if they are project
leaders, be penalised financially if their partners fail to perform.
A tradition of effective leadership and participation by UK research
establishments appears to be dwindling. In addition, the internal
DTI process of briefing and setting priorities is rarely direct
and involves a series of individuals as well as committees before
a UK line emerges. The process is pretty opaque and direct contact
with the final negotiating team is discouraged. One result can
be that smaller—and arguably more valuable programmes are
downgraded as the final horse-trading takes place towards the
end of the process.
3. Is the process for obtaining EU funds
sufficiently transparent and straightforward?
The process is transparent but quite complex.
Previous Frameworks acquired a well-deserved reputation for over-complexity
at the bid stage; a mountain of paperwork was generated for each
proposal, much of which was then repeated at contract negotiation
stage. The new simplified "A" forms for FP6 are a welcome
development, and promise a more straightforward application procedure.
It is clear that proposals submitted without
prior discussion and tailoring with EC officials stand little
chance. The work programmes are shaped by a series of meetings
of national experts and EC officials, and tend to be focused on
areas pushed by large organisations. It is not clear how influential
UK interests are in this process. The feeling is also that the
discussions prior to submission and lobbying by other European
governments and industry are very important and it is difficult
to know if the UK does this to the same degree. With the change
to larger but fewer projects, there is a concern that those not
involved in existing networks or groupings or not known to the
larger organisations and companies in Europe will find it harder
to break into the programmes.
4. Is there continuity between successive
framework programmes?
Significant changes took place between the last
two FPs, but there seems to be good continuity. FP6 has more focus
on applications and pull-through and there is a significant step-change
in the type of instruments towards much larger, and hence fewer
projects. The difficulties in managing such large projects may
have been underestimated.
However, there was little attempt by the EC
to see through initiatives started in one programme and which
may not have found a natural home in another. This was a loss
of useful investments already made as well as a tendency to avoid
some of the infrastructure projects that may have lacked glamour.
In addition, there needs to be consistency with
regards to the structure and language/jargon used from one FP
to the next. Constant changes only create bureaucratic hurdles
for potential applicants.
5. What is the potential impact of EU enlargement,
and what changes are needed for Framework 7?
Enlargement brings both opportunities for new
research collaborations, and threats such as a potential reduction
in funding available to individual research groups as a result
of the incorporation of Candidate Countries. Many Candidate Countries
are still engaged in a huge transition process and lack the national
infrastructures to help companies work closely with their national
science base let alone a European one.
FP6 will aim to adopt a broader international
view than FP5, with participation by third countries (some with
EU funding) being encouraged, where justified. Until it is observed
how FP6 develops in its initial stages, it is not possible to
predict the changes that might be required for FP7 (the formulation
of which must be fully transparent).
6. 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?
FP6 is not intended to be balanced, in that
its stated purpose is to focus European research efforts within
eight (applied) Thematic Priority areas.
The EC has spent considerable time in developing
its thematic priorities and has consulted widely both internally
and externally. The Work Programmes vary in the specificity of
the projects they are calling for. Some seem very targeted. Given
this specificity, the EC has to be careful not to be overly influenced
by powerful academics lobbying for their own areas. This is alleged
to have been occurring, with various groups being invited to Brussels
to discuss proposals!
There is not enough time for proponents to prepare
their full proposals for Integrated Project's/Networks of Excellence's
in the "first call". It is also highly 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. The first call will be different to the others since
in Calls two, three and four it is likely that outline proposals
will be called for. This will lead to the saving of a considerable
amount of time.
Only time will tell if the lapse time between
acceptance of the proposal and project launch is appropriate.
There will be a great deal of work required during this phase
in order to ensure all project members are clear about their role/budget/responsibilities
and also ensure all the legal, contractual documents are in place.
This will take considerable time and will not be funded by the
EC.
7. What is the best role of EU research institutions
such as the Joint Research Centre; are they cost effective?
The Joint Research Centre (JRC) is a Directorate
of the EC rather than a research institution. It is intended as
an aid to EU policy-making and implementation of the European
Research Area (ERA), and is designed to be independent from national
or commercial interests. This seems appropriate, but it is difficult
to ascertain the JRC's effectiveness in fulfilling its mission.
It has been perceived that the JRC is an under used resource rather
than being a fundamentally inefficient body. Most of the JRC's
research activity is funded from its own budget (1.05bn Euros
under FP6), and is thus not open to competition; only 15% of its
income derives from collaborative work funded under other programmes.
The JRC has a clear view of its role in supporting
policy needs as set out by other Directorates. There was a strong
move towards a customer contractor relationship but little in
the way of real budget transfer to the customer. Hence the JRC
programme tends to be supply side driven and this leads to a perpetuation
of work that perhaps should not be carried out or to a lack of
choice for the customer if they do not take this role seriously.
In many cases that customer is far from "intelligent"
as many of the DG officials lack a science background.
The JRC underwent a major restructuring exercise
in 2001-02, which should improve its operations and cost effectiveness.
8. What should UK policy be towards the proposals
for a European Research Council?
It is difficult to conceive of any benefit arising
from the creation of a European Research Council (ERC)—the
creation of which could represent serious dangers for UK science.
By deciding to centralise funding, small-scale physics research
(such as condensed matter physics) could suffer, as it is not
practical to conduct such research, from a distance. The formation
of an ERC could lead to the unworkable centralisation of facilities
(the CERN model simply would not work).
In addition, national Research Councils will
undoubtedly be reluctant to top-slice their national research
budgets to fund an ERC, which offers no tangible benefits to their
research programmes/priorities.
A concern related to the UK Research Councils
is how the EC will implement Article 169, which for the first
time it is threatening to do. This Article is concerned with structuring
within the publicly funded research programmes of the individual
member states (eg UK Research Councils) and the co-ordination
of these activities with the programmes funded by the EC. This
could, in principle exert a major effect on how and what research
UK agencies fund in future. The issue needs clarification as to
what the EC's intentions actually are.
9. Is the allocation of funding through the
EURATOM programme right?
Nuclear-related activities are best funded through
a separate programme. But, the EURATOM fund (69M Euros in the
first calls) seems modest in relation to the scale and nature
of the tasks to be undertaken.
Fusion is organised very differently from other
FP funded research. Instead of bidding against calls for research
proposals, national fusion laboratories like the Culham Laboratory
have Contracts of Association with EURATOM through which they
receive EURATOM part funding of all their work with a few elements
qualifying for additional funding. In addition the <20 Associations
around Europe are signatories to the European Fusion Development
Agreement (EFDA) for collective activities, most notably joint
use of the JET facilities at Culham and contributions to ITER.
Since UKAEA have a contract from EFDA to run the facilities for
experiments by Task Forces of visiting European scientists, the
UK gets a disproportionately large fraction of EURATOM fusion
expenditure (JET operations cost <£35 million per year;
of this 75% is from EURATOM, 13% from the UK, and 12% from other
European countries).
Overall, the EURATOM fusion programme has worked
well to date and it could be a good model for the ERA of the future.
However, fusion has now come to the stage where most EURATOM funding
is about to go into building ITER and at present budget levels
are not clear that there will be any money left over for JET,
nor for the part-funding of national programmes via these Contracts
of Association. Both of these are highly desirable to provide
the "glue" to keep all the countries' programmes as
co-ordinated and focussed on the end product as possible, minimising
duplication. Thus, higher EURATOM budgets are needed in times
when big new facilities are being built, otherwise the existing
programme will greatly reduce and fragment.
Another point is that the four-year cycle of
FPs does introduce an element of stop-start and medium-term budgetary
uncertainty that does not help longer-term missions like fusion
R&D; despite this, in practice some continuity between successive
FPs is possible.
16 January 2003
| 
