House of Commons - Science and Technology

Select Committee on Science and Technology Sixth Report

10 THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH COUNCIL

Why do we need a European Research Council?

177. There seems to be general agreement, amongst those who have given evidence to the Committee, that although the Framework Programmes are aimed at promoting European economic competitiveness for the social benefits, the programmes are not about promoting basic research. Curiosity driven research is not funded as such at EU level.[266] A new funding mechanism to bridge this funding gap has been given as one of the driving forces behind the proposed creation of a European Research Council (ERC).

178. EURAB, EUROHOCs, European Life Sciences Forum, EMBO and the European Science Foundation have all published papers on this issue.[267] The matter has been the subject of discussion in October 2002 at a conference held in Copenhagen, organised by the Danish Research Councils, entitled Do we need a European Research Council?[268] In February 2003, EMBO, ELSF, FEBS and UNESO held a meeting in Paris to discuss the issue.[269]

179. At the initiative of the Danish Presidency, these issues have been examined by a small group under the chairmanship of Professor Mayor (former Director-General of UNESCO) which will present possible options for an ERC by the end of 2003. Professor Ian Halliday of PPARC told the Committee that the Netherlands were adamant that they were going to propose a ERC during their presidency of the European Council, due to start in the second half of 2004—"they consider the debate over."[270]

THE COMMISSION'S POSITION

180. The Commission told the Committee in Brussels that the proposal for a ERC had sprung from an absence of pure research funded by the Framework Programmes. It was not intended to create a new bureaucratic institution, but to intensify links between existing institutions. Peter Kind of the Directorate General for Research told the Paris meeting of EMBO and the ELSF that the Commission was "very supportive" of the idea.[271]

THE UK GOVERNMENT'S POSITION

181. The UK Government retains an "open mind" on the subject.[272] However it states that a ERC would need to "fulfil a clearly identified need, add value, build on existing international collaborations and be committed to the excellence of science", without any further suggestions as to what form the Government would like the ERC to take. As the Government says "at the moment the proposal for an ERC poses more questions than answers". The main questions identified by the Government are:

What relationship the ERC would have with the national bodies and pan-European bodies that already exist?
Where the proposed budget (and some very large figures have been quoted[273]) will come from: Members States from their science budgets, the Framework Programmes, or new money?
What added value would the ERC would bring as measured against the cost of diverting national/EU funds?
What would be the structure, remit and strategic objectives of the ERC?
What links with the Commission and members states would be needed?
What would be the geographical spread of its capabilities?
How would the legal and ethical differences between members states be handled, and so on.[274]

182. The Government told us that OST and the Research Councils UK are contributing fully to the debate. Dr John Taylor, and several of the Chief Executives of the Research Councils, represented the UK at the Copenhagen Conference.[275] Dr Taylor is also the UK member of the expert group which is going to advise Ministers at the end of 2003 on the viability of an ERC.[276] He told the Committee that "we are at a very formative stage in discussions at the moment. We have been consulting around the Community informally […] our position at the moment is for us to spell out several options". "My personal position at the moment is to say that we should start talking about what it should do […] let form follow function."[277]

THE UK RESEARCH COUNCILS' POSITION

183. RCUK and the Government have had several discussions on the subject to agree a position. Whilst the Research Councils are neither for or against at this stage, Professor Radda confirmed that they "want to be part of the debate" and that before a RCUK position on the ERC is decided: "We want a very clear definition of what it is about and what the consequences of that are."[278]

184. Research Councils UK stated that discussions about an ERC had been fuelled by the debate on the need for greater trans-European competitive funding for basic research.[279] At this stage, RCUK stated that it did not want to see the establishment of a new bureaucracy funding basic research across Europe. Concerns were also expressed over who should fund it, and how it would prioritise the research it funded. RCUK would prefer FP7 to respond to the need for more basic research by expanding the basic research line of FP6 (New and Emerging Science and Technologies).

185. Professor Halliday, said that it was the smaller member states who were more eager to see the creation of the ERC, presumably because they saw it was to their advantage.[280] The UK has a highly effective national research council funding system in comparison to the smaller countries. It was important to assess the added value of a unified system if all the research councils' funding were put into one central European pot.[281] Professor Halliday made the comparison "it is like us setting up CERN in the 50s, it really is a leap of faith".[282]

186. Before an ERC is set up, RCUK wishes to establish what problem it is trying to address —it is unsure yet whether there is agreement on the what the problem is. How will the ERC make Europe more competitive with eg the US? Could member states and the Commission simply work more closely without the need to create a separate new bureaucracy? Research Councils are already pursuing interests in ERA-Net activity as a means of developing greater cooperation and integration between research funders in Europe.[283]

THE REPORT OF THE DANISH RESEARCH COUNCILS' CONFERENCE IN COPENHAGEN

187. The report stated that the ERC was needed to fund and co-ordinate basic research at European Level.[284] It should base its decisions on scientific criteria and a bottom up approach and have a rigorous and transparent peer review process. It should be run by highly respected scientists. Funding through the ERC should demonstrate genuine added value, and funding should come from "fresh money" provided by the EU, national governments and private sources where possible. Some participants pointed to the European Science Foundation as the best platform for the development of the ERC—but whatever form it took, it should be driven by the needs of scientists. There was urgent need for political endorsement of an ERC in the light of the Lisbon process and the EU commitment to increased R & D funding.

EUROPEAN SCIENCE FOUNDATION

188. The European Science Foundation (the association of 76 major national funding agencies devoted to scientific research in 29 countries) strongly recommended in their paper that an ERC be created, and that the need for a ERC was urgent.[285] The ESF sets out the case for an ERC to be the cornerstone of the ERA, to fund "long-term fundamental curiosity-driven research judged on the basis of excellence and merit." By funding bottom-up European research proposals, it would complement the existing framework programmes and national funding programmes rather than replace them. The ESF believes that an ERC would employ simple and flexible management structures and procedures that would not be "burdensome for the scientific community it serves". Importantly, the ESF believes that it must be built on the trust of the scientific community, with research priorities driven by scientific quality, rather than be policy-driven like the Framework Programmes and with no just retour. Funding would come from aspects of FP6 which could be moved over to the auspices of the ERC, together with additional new contributions from member states (and from other private sources). This, the ESF believes, would enable the EU to move more quickly towards the Barcelona target for investment in R & D by 2010. As ESF assess the need for an ERC as urgent, they suggest that it could be created from an already legally constituted body—such as the ESF.

LIFE SCIENCES IN THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH COUNCIL MEETING REPORT

189. The report of the meeting in Paris, February 2003, states that consensus at the meeting in Paris was achieved on a number of issues: the ERC must have a lean administration and base its decisions on scientific excellence. It should cover all scientific disciplines and EMBO should be used as a role model. Some participants insisted that national research systems should not suffer from the existence of an ERC.

190. Mr Peter Kind, of the Commission Directorate General for Research, had said that EUROHOCs or the ESF could be the founding fathers of the ERC. The European Commission had said it was not its role to establish an ERC.[286] Suggestions for the amount of funding needed for the ERC ranged from €2 billion to €20 billion. Mr Kind warned that money could not be diverted from the Framework Programmes and that the private sector could not be relied upon to provide significant funding. An overall increase in the contribution of Members states towards the ERC would also thereby raise budgets in line with the Barcelona agreement to raise the % of GDP to 3%. It was now necessary to give the stakeholders and politicians a clear idea of how the ERC could be created in order to ensure that it becomes a reality in the next five years.[287]

THE UK RESEARCH COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE TO THE ERC PROPOSALS

191. Some responses to the Committee on the question of whether there should be a European Research Council were negative, saying that it was unclear what an ERC could add, that the Commission already acted as an ERC and the creation of a new ERC would simply add more layers of bureaucracy.[288] However, many submissions had suggestions of how it could be a success.[289] A common theme was that it could fund the biggest research, curiosity driven, that individual member states could not afford to fund on their own. There was a feeling that under the current system, basic research was not adequately served by the national research council support in each country nor by the Framework programmes, and so a ERC could add to this.[290] It would be bottom-up research based on scientific quality not political decisions, and it would also bring more world class facilities to Europe.[291]

192. Unsurprisingly, evidence to the Committee suggested that the countries with stronger, effective research bases wish to preserve their funding agencies, whereas the smaller countries with less effective research bases favoured the European Research Council proposals and the development of stronger European facilities.[292]

193. A couple of responses, including that of the Royal Society, were devoted to the topic of the European Research Council alone, whilst most memoranda commented that the lack of clarification over the issue had made it difficult to provide an opinion.[293]

194. The main questions that appeared to be asked were: what form would it take; who would sit on the Council and how would they be appointed; how would an ERC sit alongside the Commission Directorate for Research, the Framework Programmes and the national funding agencies; what would its remit be; and how would it be funded?

195. The Royal Astronomical Society stated that the UK Government must have a firm policy on this issue.[294] The Royal Academy of Engineering told the Committee "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."[295]

196. On the evidence given to us it is clear that there is a lack of funding under FP6 for basic research. However, the Government pointed out that "Alongside the seven thematic priorities, 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. In addition, basic research outside the thematic programmes will be supported through the mobility and training programmes."[296]

197. Nevertheless, the present thematic priorities and the majority of funding is directed at short-intermediate terms applications with very little fundamental science.[297]Whilst the longer time frames of FP6 are considered a welcome development by many,[298] Framework Programme funding is generally inappropriate for much blue skies research.[299](This view was not shared by all those who gave evidence—for example, BNFL considered that FP6 was biased towards basic research.)[300]

198. Article 163 of the Treat of Amsterdam states that the European Community shall have the research objective of "strengthening the scientific and technological bases of Community industry and encouraging it to become more competitive at international level."[301] Whilst applied research tends to have a more immediate industrial application, basic research is also essential to industrial technology. The OST memorandum stated that "many high-technology industries which are taken for granted today originated in discoveries or inventions with little or no foreseeable market."[302]Save British Science reminded us that monoclonal antibodies and global positioning systems sprang from basic science and are now worth billions of euros a year.[303] The position of basic research within the Framework Programmes will be part of the discussion on an European Research Council. We consider that whilst an ERC could be a possible solution for the current need for greater funding for basic research in Europe, FP6 should, instead of creating a separate ERC, develop into an FP7 with the goal of a 50:50 ratio of applied and basic research funding. However, projects of basic research funded through FP7 or an ERC should be given longer time scales similar to the typical 10 year programmes of CERN.

199. Whilst we are reassured that the Government intends to participate in the debate over the possibility of the European Research Council, we recommend that the Research Councils engage the research community in the debate, so that the Government is well informed of the views of the science community before the Report by the Mayor-Group is published. The Government must produce a UK response quickly enough to enable the UK to lead on the discussions surrounding the role, remit, structure and chairmanship of the ERC rather then follow the decisions from smaller countries who are already keen for an ERC to be created. As the Director of the Babraham Institute said "we should get on the train and drive the engine".[304] The Government must also make clear its position to the UK research community, which is currently unsure of either the Government or Commission position on the proposals.

200. We are concerned that the Government is taking the back-seat approach to the European Research Council. We recommend that it establishes a blue-print for an ERC that will work well with the UK's national funding structures and its research base. The scenario in which the UK Government fights a rear-guard action to head off damaging proposals from others is too familiar.

201. Although it is important to first establish the added value that an ERC could bring, and the form that it could take, the Government should also consider the proposals for how it will be funded. Suggestions have been that Member States' contributions will have to increase. It is unlikely, as Peter Kind told the life sciences conference in Paris, that FP6 will be able to produce funding for an ERC.[305] The Government must consider where the extra funding for an European Research Council will come from. If Member States are asked for additional contributions, the UK's share should not merely be taken from the current forecast allocations to Research Councils, but should be over and above the current Science Budget to ensure that nationally defined and funded science projects are not adversely affected

202. Whilst the remit of the proposed ERC remains unclear, the Government must ensure that, should an ERC be created, its decisions must be subject to robust peer review, and the priorities for research should be pressing scientific issues chosen by scientists rather than based on geo-political considerations by the Commission or by European parliamentarians.

266 Euroscience, Summary of positions expressed by Euroscience members with respect to the creation of a European Research Council, October 4 2002 Back

267 European Science Foundation, New Structures for the Support of high-quality research in Europe, April 2003. Back

268 Board of the Danish Research Councils, Do we need a European Research Council?: Summary Report of the Conference organised by the Danish Research Councils 7-8 October 2002, November 2002. Back

269 EMBO, 'Life Sciences in the European Research Council: Meeting Report', European Biotechnology News, No. 1 Volume 2, 2003. Back

270 Q 310 Back

271 The Scientist, February 20 2003, www.the-scientist.com Back

272 Ev 126 Back

273 See New structures for the support of high-quality research in Europe, p 12. Back

274 Ev 126 Back

275 Ev 126 Back

276 Q 366 Back

277 Q 366 Back