CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The new instruments in FP6
1. We are concerned that evidence
suggests that large sections of the UK research community were
not consulted in the formulation of the new instruments. Whilst
the Commission is responsible for disseminating information about
the Framework Programmes, it now falls to the UK Government to
ensure that the research community is fully aware of the opportunities
available and the new structure of FP6. This could be done through
the National Contact Point network, which is discussed later in
this Report. The Government and Research Councils should monitor
the UK take up of FP6 carefully to carry forward suggestions for
improvement in FP7. (Paragraph 26)
2. The Marie Curie
Fellowship Scheme under FP5 seems to have been well regarded by
the research community and it is unclear to us why change was
necessary. The Government should monitor their take up under FP6
and consult industry for its views of the success of the new fellowships.
If necessary the Government should negotiate with the Commission
for improvement or reinstatement of the previous scheme. (Paragraph
31)
Measuring the success of European research
3. We welcome the development of a
European Patent as a step towards encouraging the registering
of patents in the EU, and recommend that the Government monitor
the situation carefully to ensure that the resulting patent is
favourable to UK interests and not unduly delayed by the enlargement
of the EU. As a tool for measuring the success of FP6, the number
of patents registered in Europe may be misleading, as a community
patent would no doubt produce a larger number of patents registered
in Europe as a consequence of its creation. (Paragraph 37)
4. Due to the scale
of the changes from FP5 to FP6, the assessment of the success
of the new instruments in FP6 will be an important undertaking.
The Government must make it clear to the UK research community
how it, and the Commission, will be assessing the performance
of FP6. The Framework Programmes will have gone a long way if,
by the end of FP6, the UK research community accept the Framework
Programmes as equally important as those funded by the research
councils. (Paragraph 43)
The UK's performance in Framework Programme 5
5. Whilst there are no conclusive
statistics available from the European Commission on the amount
of funding received by the UK from FP5, the indications are that
the UK did better than most, if not all, of the other countries
participating in FP5. That does not necessarily mean value for
money: but it does speak volumes for the relative strength of
the UK science base. (Paragraph 53)
How the research community views the value of
the Framework Programmes
6. We consider that the UK is fully
committed to the Framework Programmes and as such would not be
able to withdraw from the programmes without excessive damage
to the research community. The UK apparently received more funding
back from FP5 than it contributed to it, and the funding of projects
facilitated research and cooperation that would not have happened
without it. There is undoubted value in the programmes for the
UK. The focus must now be on how the UK can maintain its strong
performance, and on ensuring that the research community is able
to participate to the maximum effect. (Paragraph 66)
Overheads
7. We were told in Brussels that overheads
were not an issue in other Member States and that movement on
this by the Commission could not be expected. From the evidence
we received, we consider that there is an issue of the cost of
overheads in the UK which needs to be addressed by the UK Government,
particularly if SMEs and universities are reluctant to participate
as a result. There are a number of ways in which this could be
tackled. The simplest is for the Government to provide help actively
and guidance through the National Contact Point Network on the
best way for participants to approach the issue of overheads and
which cost model to apply for in order to optimise the overhead
contribution from the Commission. There may also be a role for
RDAs to provide financial or administrative assistance to SMEs.
It remains the fact that the Commission contribution is still
only a contribution, and the situation remains unsatisfactory
with the most successful bidders at greatest financial risk. The
UK Government's refusal to contribute to the indirect costs associated
with Framework Programme grants compromises the already delicate
finances of our universities and therefore the participation of
our best researchers. The Government has an opportunity to make
the UK the clear leader in European research but to realise that
aim requires that the Government provide extra funding in SR2004
to meet these costs. At a time when the Government wishes to encourage
universities to charge for the full costs of their research, its
stance is untenable. (Paragraph 72)
EUROPES and Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL)
8. Whilst RCUK are now satisfied with
the settlement over DEL, we remain concerned that there is a potential
for HM Treasury to claw back money from Government Departments
and research institutes in respect of money received from the
EU. The Chancellor wishes to build a knowledge economy. It is
unfortunate, therefore, that the Treasury wishes to penalise Government
Departments which wish to participate. If Departments wish to
support increased research through EU funding, the Treasury should
not undermine their efforts. (Paragraph 75)
The selection process
9. 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. (Paragraph 88)
10. 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. (Paragraph 92)
11. 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. (Paragraph 99)
12. 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. (Paragraph 100)
Opportunities for basic research
13. 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. (Paragraph 104)
The socio-political agenda behind FP6
14. We consider that the effects of
enlargement will not be dramatic as many accession countries already
participate in the Framework Programmes. European science is likely
to benefit from the greater pool of talented scientists made available
by FP6. The Commission should avoid pressurising consortia to
include partners from candidate countries. We welcome the opportunities
offered by enlargement and accept that the long term goal of building
a competitive Europe may be a priority, but a balance must be
struck between this and the maintenance of a credible, meritocratic
system. (Paragraph 114)
Selection of projects
15. We believe that the Commission
needs to emphasise the basis on which the selection of projects
is made, and give greater feedback to applicants on the reasons
for failure. (Paragraph 119)
The application process
16. We are encouraged that both the
Government and Research Councils are aware of the problems encountered
by UK applicants in submitting proposals. We welcome their acknowledgement
that the complexity of application forms is off-putting to inexperienced
applicants and SMEs, without large administrative resources, who
may not consider it worthwhile continuing to spend time and money
on applications. However, we are sceptical of the Commission's
commitment to reducing bureaucracy. We urge the Government and
RCUK to continue to bring pressure to bear on the Commission to
improve the application process, in particular to reduce the time
taken in producing and issuing contracts. The Commission wishes
to make Europe a research powerhouse to rival the USA. Only by
significantly reducing the bureaucracy of the Framework Programme
can this become a reality. (Paragraph 127)
Transparency of the process
17. The Government should press for
the publication of Commission performance targets so that any
improvements, or deterioration, in contract turnover time are
easier to assess. (Paragraph 129)
Support for applicants
18. The facility exists for feedback
by applicants to the Commission on the application process in
general, and we suggest that applicants convey the shortfalls
of the system to the Directorate for Research in Brussels. Research
Councils UK should support the research community by pressing
the Commission to place more useful information on the website,
without overloading those seeking help. They should work to alter
the perception that you need to be an old Brussels hand to have
any chance of success and to make the process more accessible
to all. (Paragraph 133)
Information provided by the UK Government and
Research Councils
19. We consider that this highly praised
and well-run resource should be maintained by the Research Councils
and developed where possible to include industry. The two extra
staff is a good start, but it is likely that providing a tailored
service to SMEs would require the Research Councils to consider
whether UKRO needs to be expanded further, and to find the funding
to do this. (Paragraph 137)
20. We welcome the
Government's commitment to improving the National Contact Point
Network, and whilst we also welcome the creation of the Central
Information Point, we expect the Government to ensure that the
service and information provided by National Contact Points is
substantially improved by Autumn 2003 (Paragraph 143)
21. We believe that
the Government has an important role to play in the promotion
of the Framework Programmes to UK organisations. It should not
assume that there is sufficient awareness of the Framework Programmes
in the UK, particularly amongst SMEs. The Government has a responsibility
to ensure that the National Contact Point network is developed
and that the Research Councils and Regional Development Agencies
are supported in their work to promote FP6 and help inexperienced
applicants. We believe that RDAs have a valuable role to play
in supporting participants. The Government should also continue
to promote the UK to potential partners abroad through the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office Science and Technology network and the
British Council. The Government should increase its efforts to
promote UK participation for as long as the UK continues to contribute
towards the programmes. (Paragraph 145)
22. We recommend that
the Research Councils, together with the Government, should have
a clear strategy on how to identify the key areas in which the
UK could excel and then be more aggressive in ensuring that these
areas were properly represented by UK applicants (Paragraph 149)
23. The UK's support
for Framework Programme applications is too fragmented. While
central government, Research Councils and RDAs all have a role,
this effort should be streamlined and offer an single advice point
regardless of the sector or the location of the applicant (Paragraph
150)
EURATOM
24. It is clear that there are concerns
over the long-terms investment in the nuclear skills base. Whilst
the Commission have decided to invest most of EURATOM funding
into a long-term strategy of developing nuclear fusion, this could
lead to a gap in the development of fission technology in the
years before the first fusion power stations are operable. There
is also a concern that very few young people will wish to join
an industry which is intent on winding itself down, and decommissioning
its reactors, which could result in a serious skills gap for the
future nuclear fusion industry. This issue is tackled in our Fourth
Report of Session 2002-03. Once the Joint European Torus project
has finished at Culham, future EURATOM funded projects will move
to mainland Europe, and the UK will have to consider how its investment
to EURATOM will be returned if its own nuclear skills base is
not developed using national funding. We urge the Government to
consider how it will develop the national nuclear skills base
and negotiate accordingly in future framework programmes (Paragraph
161)
Suggestions for improvement of the JRC
25. Although the Commission should
have access to scientific advice, the Committee remains unconvinced
that the Joint Research Centre fulfils this role adequately and
efficiently with its current structure. An advisory service needs
to be informed by research but is unclear why it requires a research
capacity. We believe that it would prove more effective to end
the ring-fenced funding of the JRC and establish open competition
for the provision of advice to the Commission. This would then
be peer reviewed to ensure the Commission is receiving advice
of the highest quality (Paragraph 175)
26. When responding
to the Report of the Five-Year Assessment, due in early 2004,
the Government and Research Councils should press the Commission
for a more accountable system of advice and a decision on the
future of the JRC which does not involve further reviews and the
time delay that would cause. (Paragraph 176)
Why do we need a European Research Council?
27. On the evidence given to us it
is clear that there is a lack of funding under FP6 for basic research.(Paragraph
196)
28. 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. (Paragraph 198)
29. 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".
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. (Paragraph 199)
30. 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 (Paragraph 200)
31. 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
(Paragraph 201)
32. 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. (Paragraph 202)
Conclusions
33. We believe that the UK Government
will need to ensure that the Commission does not rest on its laurels
and continues to make the process significantly more user-friendly
throughout FP6 and towards FP7. (Paragraph 204)
34. The Government
has not done as much as it should to encourage participation from
the UK in FP6. There are many individuals and organisations which
do not need assistance in applying, creating consortia or making
contact with Brussels. However, there are many applicants who
would benefit from a better organised, funded and presented National
Contact Point network in the UK, particularly SMEs. The Government
and Research Councils should continue to expand UKRO, which has
to date provided an extremely useful service to its subscribers.
UKRO is extending its service to SMEs, many of whom have been
put off applying for Framework Programme funding due to the heavy
administrative burden of the application process. It is likely
that UKRO will need extra funding if it is to provide the same
quality of service to its SME subscribers. The Government must
provide greater support to those applying for project funding
if the UK is to continue to do well in the Framework Programmes.
(Paragraph 205)
35. We consider that
in negotiations for the thematic priorities of Framework Programmes,
the Government should continue to take an active part, should
consult the UK research community, and should de-mystify the negotiations
for those in the UK who are unaware of the role the Government
plays in this process. (Paragraph 206)
36. There is widespread
dissatisfaction throughout Europe between the balance of applied
and basic research funded by the Framework Programmes. The proposals
for an European Research Council have arisen in part from this
dissatisfaction We believe that there should be a gradual shift
in funding towards more basic research. Whilst the alignment of
research priorities across Europe will have its benefits, the
Government must ensure that it takes a lead in the negotiations
over an ERC to prevent the creation of extra layers of bureaucracy
and to protect UK interests. (Paragraph 207)
|
