HOW ARE PRIORITIES CHOSEN: WHO DECIDES?
84. The Commission told the Committee that
the priority themes had been chosen in consultation with scientists,
industry and national governments. The Government confirmed that
the Commission had consulted widely with the scientific community
and had included the CREST Committee of Member State officials
(the EU's Science and Technology Research Committee which is chaired
by DG Research and attended by representatives from Member and
Associated States).[88]
The Commission told the Committee that themes were decided on
a political basis. For example, the European Parliament had requested
that the issue of major diseases be taken up in FP6.
85. The UKREP and UKRO both told the Committee
that the Government had been heavily involved in the discussions
over the thematic priorities (as well as the structure of FP6),
and that there had been fierce debate over the ethics of stem
cell research. The Government told us that the FP6 negotiations
had progressed "relatively smoothly", were completed
on schedule and with no recourse to the conciliation procedure
between the European Council and Parliament. The Government also
confirmed that the most contentious issue had been that of bioethics
and the use of human embryos in medical research as Member states
hold very different views on this matter.[89]
86. Professor Sir David King, told the Committee
that credit must be given to Lord Sainsbury for being so successful
in getting much of the British position across in the negotiations.
Professor King added that it was no coincidence that many of the
UK research priorities matched those found in FP6.[90]
Dr John Taylor, Director General of the Research Councils, commented
that the themes covering the life sciences, information technology
and aeronautics were particularly complementary to research themes
in the UK.[91]
87. The UK Government successfully argued
for research on both banked and isolated embryonic stem cells
to be included in FP6, but discussions on research on embryos
and embryonic stem cells have been postponed for a year.[92]
We also received evidence from the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program
(IODP) which had been an extremely successful international scientific
collaboration funded by FP5. This had conducted research into,
amongst other things, understanding recent climate change. Funding
for IODP was included in the draft FP6 work programme until shortly
before the formal publication of FP6, but suddenly dropped from
the final document. It was not reinstated, despite the efforts
of Lord Sainsbury. The representatives of IODP were left frustrated
and mystified by the Commission's U-turn on its evaluation of
the project with proven scientific impact and excellence.[93]
88. We are reassured by the evidence
that the UK Government was able to argue its corner on the issue
of stem cells, but we are concerned that the Commission has also
shown itself capable of disregarding projects such as the Ocean
Drilling Programme supported under FP5, supported by the UK Science
Minister, European National Research Councils and members of the
Research Directorate-General, which are of great value to the
European and UK research communities.[94]
89. The UK Government told the Committee
that it carried out a public consultation before FP6 negotiations
began to identify key UK priorities. Dr John Taylor told the Committee
that the Research Councils were just one of the inputs in that
process, and there was a wider consultation across government
departments. He believed that there had been an open and transparent
consultation process as far as forming the UK Government's position
on the FP6 negotiations.[95]
90. Professor Sir George Radda, Chief Executive
of the MRC, told the Committee that they had a great deal of input
through the OST into the discussions on the themes for life sciences,
genomics, biotechnology and health.[96]
MRC carried out a survey with its own scientists, and prepared
a response through its strategy group which was provided to OST.
Their advice, that the priorities should be clinical trials, genomics
and epidemiology, was "taken up in FP6—we can really
be quite pleased that the view of our scientific community ended
up as the priorities in that particular theme."[97]
Similarly, the Chief Executives of BBSRC and PPARC confirmed that
they had reasonable success in their requests for themes to be
treated as priorities.[98]
91. Professor Halliday, Chief Executive
of PPARC, commented that for FP7 the European Research Advisory
Board (EURAB is a high-level, independent, advisory committee
created by the Commission to provide advice on the design and
implementation of EU research policy)[99]
was likely to push for a more rational debate on the choice of
themes, to ensure that the basis for decisions would be stronger.[100]
92. Whilst there will always areas of
research which lose out in the Framework Programmes and there
needs to be a limit to the number of priorities across which the
total budget is spread, the valuable input of the UK research
community, through the Research Councils and Government, has ensured
and should continue to ensure that the priorities in Europe are,
as far as possible, reasonably closely aligned with those felt
most relevant in the UK. The Research Councils should continue
to consult their communities and provide the results to the OST
in preparation for FP7. It is important the science community
is consulted not only on the priorities that ought to be included
in FP7, but on the optimal balance of funding between applied
and basic research.
93. Much of the evidence to the Committee
indicated that a large element of the research community in the
UK had been involved in negotiations and was content with the
process. For example, Rolls Royce Plc told the Committee that
there was continuous dialogue between the European aeronautics
industry and the Commission. Aeronautics is already an industry
in which organisations and companies compete and collaborate with
each other for the benefit of themselves and Europe. This had
made it easier for the Commission to put forward a balanced programme
that met the needs of society whilst supporting a globally competitive
industry.[101]
94. The University of Surrey told the Committee
that the selection of high technology science priorities had been
done with a great deal of consultation. Similarly, the Institute
of Physics (IOP)claimed that the Commission had spent considerable
time in developing its thematic priorities and had consulted widely
both internally and externally. The IOP also pointed out that
FP6 was not intended to be balanced—its purpose was to focus
research efforts within a limited number of priority areas.[102]
95. However, some of the evidence received
by the Committee suggested that the basis for selection of the
priority areas for funding was far from clear to many in the UK
research community, and was in fact the least transparent part
of the whole process. The Royal Astronomical Society said that
the process was not well understood.[103]
This lack of transparency inevitably led to suspicions of undue
political influence by large companies and industries. Professor
Marshall of the Institute of Physics commented that the process
was based to some extent:
"on things going on behind closed doors
that one does not see terribly clearly. The debate amongst practitioners
is how much of what goes on behind closed doors is heavily influenced
by the great and the good or by people who are extremely powerful
[…] the problem is that the process is not completely transparent
so you cannot say it is completely fair".[104]
96. The Royal Academy of Engineering told
the Committee that no indication was given "of the level
of consultation with the relevant industries regarding needs and
priorities."[105]
Dr Taylor commented that "because Brussels is perhaps a rather
remote organisation, however transparent, most people feel they
are not really having an input, so I think there is a fundamental,
almost psychological problem which needs to be overcome."[106]
97. On the role of the Government and Research
Councils in the selection process, Dr Robertson of Newcastle University
told the Committee "I would have liked to have seen some
of the Research Councils identify—and maybe PPARC did—the
key areas that they wanted to succeed in and to be much more aggressive
in ensuring that those areas were properly represented in terms
of the development of major initiatives […] I think we need
to be a little more aggressive in the UK in fighting for the things
that make it consistent with UK policy so that it is adding value
and not in conflict."[107]
98. Professor Halliday, confirmed that there
was a debate about how the process could be made more open, and
how the input and basis of decisions could be made more transparent
to everybody "to a scientist in an arbitrary university in
the United Kingdom it must look a totally mysterious process."[108]
Professor Beveridge of Plymouth University commented on the lack
of a coherent strategy relating European funding to national research
funding: "we need a policy which looks at what the research
benefits are in different research areas requiring different kinds
of investment and infrastructure and seeing where European funding
can benefit […] it may exist but I have not seen that."[109]
Professor Radda suggested that it was for the national Governments
involved in the negotiating process to make the negotiations clearer
to the research community.[110]
99. Whilst those who are privy to the
selection process accept that the Commission consults widely in
formulating its priorities, it would benefit the Commission greatly
if it made the selection process better understood. The Expressions
of Interest Exercise was a step in the right direction in allowing
all sections of industry and academia some input into the process,
and we would recommend that this is retained and expanded upon
for FP7.
100. Whilst
the Government appears to be closely involved in negotiating with
the Commission, there is a need for the UK Government and Research
Councils to disseminate their work with the Commission to the
wider research community to avoid suspicion and misunderstanding.
We consider that it is vital that the UK Government ensures UK
research priorities are not dictated by Framework Programme priorities,
but, so far as possible, Framework Programmes should complement
UK priorities. The Government should make its role in the negotiations
clearer to the UK research community. This information would encourage
greater UK confidence in the Framework Programmes and through
this confidence, encourage more participation.
Opportunities for basic research
101. The imbalance between applied and basic
research is very evident in the Framework Programmes, which are
limited to objectives set out in the EU Treaty of Amsterdam—"The
Community shall have the objective of strengthening the scientific
and technological bases of Community industry and encouraging
it to become more competitive at international level."[111]
The Government commented that a significant part of FP6 is likely
to be spent on longer term research, and that FP6 makes provision
for supporting research into areas of cutting-edge and newly evolving
areas of science (New and Emerging Science and Technology NEST),
especially those which are likely to have a long term impact on
society. The first calls for NEST Basic research will also be
supported through the mobility and training programmes outside
the thematic programmes.[112]
102. Professor Sir David King told the Committee
that the Government ought to look at whether the budget for open-ended
research was enough—particularly during negotiations for
FP7.[113] He added
that although applied research has a role to play in wealth-creation,
the impact of basic research could be greater. "If we look
at the spin-out companies which have the potential disruptive
technologies of the future, we are seeing that they are emerging
much more from the five-star departments, from the excellent fundamental
research-orientated departments than from others."[114]
103. There was also concern that the rigid
nature of the Framework Programmes—the advance setting of
priorities for the four years—would preclude research into
topical areas.[115]
The need for a more bottom-up and responsive approach for research
has led to discussions which include a proposed European Research
Council, which is dealt with later in this Report.
104. We consider that the budget for
New and Emerging Science and Technology, which at €215 million
amounts to no more than 1.2% of the total FP6 budget, is unlikely
to rectify the lack of substantial Framework Programme funding
for basic science. This is short sighted when considering
the ambitious targets set for R & D in Europe.
86 The
European Research Area, p 10 Back
87 Sixth
Framework Programme, FAQ, p 3 Back
88 Ev 125 Back
89 Ev 122 Back
90 Q 361 Back
91 Q 361 Back
92 Ev 122 Back
93 Ev 166 Back
94 Ev 173 Back
95 Q 361 Back
96 Q 315 Back
97 Q 315 Back
98 Qq 317 and
318 Back
99 EURAB is
made up of 45 top experts from EU countries and beyond. Its members
are nominated in a personal capacity and come from a wide range
of academic and industrial backgrounds, as well as representing
other societal interests. Back
100 Q 324 Back
101 Ev 64 Back
102 Ev 30 Back
103 Ev 146 Back
104 Q 110 Back
105 Ev 26 Back
106 Q 362 Back
107 Q 91 Back
108 Q 327 Back
109 Q 97 Back
110 Q 328 Back
111 Ev 88 Back
112 Ev 125 Back
113 Q 376 Back
114 Q 377 Back
115 Q 113 Back
