FOCUS OF THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
2.1 There is a general
consensus that the Framework Programme has been spread too thinly
and too far between an ever-increasing assortment of programmes
(e.g. QQ 133, 166, p 204). The Commission itself shares
this view (see above, paragraphs 1.15-17), seeing selection
of topics and concentration of resources as a top priority. It
has cautioned, however, that there has in the past been an intractable
barrier to the solution of this problem: "with each Framework
Programme, the question arises of the "dispersion" of
projects and resources. There is also the problem of incorporating
novel ideas that arise during the course of the programme and
the difficulty of winding up activities, each of which is of interest,
de facto, to a particular group of people".[14]
2.2 Professor Routti,
Director-General of DG XII of the Commission, said that the
Fourth Framework Programme was "probably too fragmented.
It consists of up to 20 separate programmes and there are about
10,000 projects going on at this time. We cannot solve all the
problems at the same time. We want to have a large number of
participants in these programmes but we want to have more co-ordination"
(Q 323). Professor Georghiou, Director of Policy Research
in Engineering, Science and Technology (PREST) at the University
of Manchester, echoed the Commission: "there seems to be
a situation where once something is in place it cannot be cut
back or removed from the Framework Programme" (QQ 66,
134). The Royal Academy of Engineering took this further: "one
of the hardest things to do in research is to close down a project.
This is what we have to do in some of the long-term areas of
FP4 if we are to be able to open up new areas in Framework 5"
(Q 191, cp p 198). The Biotechnology and Biological
Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) pointed out, however, that the
rise in allocation of funds to Biotechnology, from 2.8 to 4.4 per
cent between FP3 and FP4, was clear evidence that the Framework
Programme was responding to new scientific opportunities and was
not just perpetuating past funding lines (p 116).
2.3 Professor Georghiou
of PREST drew lessons from his chairmanship of the five-year review
of the biotechnology programme. "We found in that review
that it is large projects which have the most impact, for example,
the well known case of the yeast genome, but there are others
... which are the largest projects in the programme and also have
the most impact. That seems to indicate that where resources
are concentrated more effect relatively can be achieved"
(Q 69).
2.4 The Economic and
Social Research Council (ESRC) criticised the often unscientific
way in which the content of the Framework Programmes is arrived
at. "You begin with ... national views about a future Framework
Programme. There are typically long meetings of officials in
Brussels which generate further proposals. All the major scientific
bodies in Europe contribute their advice in such a way that you
can observe a sort of ritual dance of deference ... around the
Commission with visions of future research being expressed very
eloquently. There is a certain degree of horse trading that goes
on both inside and outside DG XII. Then, to add yet further
complexities, there are direct interventions by Member States
who want to ensure that their own interests are enshrined in any
future programme" (Q 273). R&D proposals are subject
to unanimity in the Council of Ministers; Mrs Eryl McNally MEP
(p 199) remarked that majority voting would improve decision-making.
2.5 The Office of Science
and Technology (OST) said that programmes had to be concentrated
on the things which mattered most for Europe: "we want to
constrain the programme and not allow too many baubles to be hung
on it like a Christmas tree" (Q 22). "It is important
to avoid the temptation to load the programme down with everybody's
pet subjects ... It is equally important that we work with other
Member States to make clear that this does not necessarily mean
fewer, bigger projects. Rather it means fewer, more important
objectives. That is the message we have to work to get across,
particularly to the smaller Member States ... Finally, subsidiarity
is another key principle, which is important and separate from
the added value principle. Article 3b of the Treaty requires
that the Community does only the things which cannot be done by
Member States. So even if the programme can add value at a European
level there is still no case to intervene unless to do so would
be to achieve something which could not be achieved by Member
States acting individually or collectively outside the Community"
(Q 2).
2.6 The BBSRC spoke
in favour of what they described as the European Science Foundation's
à la carte process, whereby it was up to each
country and each participating research council within those countries
to decide whether they wanted to be involved in each new ESF programme.
The EPSRC proposed that "only those Member States capable
of undertaking research to the highest scientific standards are
invited to participate in particular projects/programmes"
(p 181); greater emphasis would then be placed on providing
fair access to the resultant technology on a European-wide basis.
The Treaty allows for such arrangements in the Framework Programmes
(Articles 130k and l); the German government advocated such
arrangements in their original submission to the Commission on
FP5[15];
and the Commission appears to envisage an à la
carte element to FP5: Inventing Tomorrow p 19,
Towards FP5 p 9.
2.7 Sir Dai Rees gave
evidence in January, at the end of the inquiry, when the Commission's
plans for FP5 were becoming clearer. He echoed others in criticising
FP4 for lack of focus; the Commission had tried to be "omnivorous".
The Framework Programmes accounted for only a small fraction
of public sector EU research; so, rather than trying to cover
everything, they should be looking for a niche. However he saw
signs in recent Commission utterances that, for FP5, this lesson
was on the way to being learnt (QQ 434, 436). He considers
that a genuinely European research agenda can be identified; in
the biosciences, it might include agriculture, environmental health
and state health care systems (Q 436). Other witnesses generally
agreed that, ultimately, the main determinants of what research
should be funded were quality (e.g. pp 12, 40, 105, 148,
177, 213) and clear added value from organising the research at
a European rather than national or global level (pp 90, 177,
179, 205, 212).
2.8 Professor Routti
is clearly alive to the importance of subsidiarity. "It
is important to define what we need to do together and what is
best done at national level. If one looks at the history of European
collaborative research, one can see that many areas are such that
only common efforts are possible. The very expensive facilities
needed for space research, particle physics, the European Southern
Observatory and the like, have called for joint action, which
has been typically organised in separate organisations. But also
on the science side there are many issues which must be addressed,
and can only be addressed, by common action. At the environmental
side, global change, the greenhouse effect, the Mediterranean,
the Baltic, the River Danube, the Rhine, are questions which cannot
be addressed within the shores of a single country" (Q 323).
2.9 As noted above,
Inventing Tomorrow commits FP5 to "meeting basic economic
and social needs". Professor Routti explained (Q 323):
"Commissioner Cresson ... has very much emphasised the needs
of society, the concerns of the citizens, as the guiding principles
for research programmes. These questions relate to employment,
job security, physical safety, environment, education, welfare
systems and so on". Mrs McNally MEP (p 198)
offers another example of a "citizen-led" research agenda,
focusing on health.
2.10 It is to be expected
that a Framework Programme with socio-economic objectives will
have an explicit element of funding for socio-economic research.
Professor Routti acknowledged that TSER is a small element
of FP4 (147 MECU, £106m, 1.1 per cent); "Its
importance is growing, but I do not think we need to duplicate
the effort done at a national level" (Q 341). It was
however necessary to analyse as best one could the socio-economic
impact of changing technologies (QQ 328, 341).
VALUE FOR MONEY
Success stories
2.11 In 1992 a European
project established the complete sequence of chromosome III
of yeast. According to POST (5.4 (a)), "This is the
first time that a chromosome ... has been sequenced; this has
profound implications for the sequencing of higher animals (e.g.
humans)". This was cited by many witnesses as a Framework
Programme success story; it was achieved under the biotechnology
action programme following collaborative work involving 147 scientists
working in 35 laboratories in ten Member States. The Biotechnology
and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) admitted that
not all the genome work had "flowed from FP4" (cp QQ 409),
but support from FP4 had "given an impetus to that work.
The full sequencing of that yeast genome which is 6,000 genes
is an extraordinarily important event".
2.12 We asked several
of our witnesses to name the outstanding successes of Framework-funded
research. The OST named the gene sequencing of yeast noted above,
and of the plant arabidopsis (Q 5). Dr D A Parker,
speaking for the Royal Academy of Engineering, singled out projects
on information technology, ceramics, high-temperature superconductors,
better use of fossil fuels and electric vehicles (Q 186).
The BBSRC cited work at Oxford into aspects of carbohydrate recognition
and control, which could lead to important developments for the
treatment of diabetes; and genetic work to increase the health
value of the tomato (Q 286). In the informatics field, the
Commission pointed to ICL's "clear statement at the time
that they publicised the Goldrush chip-the parallel-processing
chip-that this was clearly and squarely based on a project which
had been within the Information Technologies programme" (Q 356).
The CVCP (p 158) supplied examples of projects involving
United Kingdom universities where Framework funding has helped
to strengthen European research (e.g. "Euroscreen",
on the ethics of genetic screening, at the University of Central
Lancashire), or has led to better distribution of scientific skills
(e.g. the Large Scale Facility for combustion in Cardiff, with
grants to help scientists from central and eastern Europe to use
it), or has encouraged industrial applications (e.g. Glasgow Caledonian
University's project on an external intelligent lighting system),
or has improved the quality of life (e.g. work at King's College
London on molecular events influencing cellular behaviour in atherosclerosis,
which has led to a patent and may produce drug- or gene-based
treatments). For further success stories, see Box below. The
Commission wishes to improve publicity for such stories (Q 356).
Benefits to Europe
2.13 Lord Kennet (who
has contracts with the Commission to conduct conferences, research
and publications on bioethics and national parliaments) cautioned
that "clear value for money, or its absence, cannot in advance
be demonstrated from any programme of scientific research, ...
the higher the content of pure, as opposed to applied, research
in a programme the more it is against our national interest to
emphasise the question of value for money" (p 193).
Nonetheless, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology
(POST) made the attempt, and compared investment in the Framework
Programmes with indicators of Europe's industrial competitiveness
(production in high-tech industries, trade ratios, and ratios
of R&D expenditure to production) and with indicators of European
R&D activity (R&D spending as a percentage of GDP, scientific
publications, US patents per MECU of R&D spending) (see POST
5.1). POST concluded, "There is no obvious association between
the growth of the Framework Programmes and measures of EU competitiveness
and technological success. Indeed, many indicators suggest a
relative decline since the Programmes started. This is more likely
to be a reflection of the inappropriateness of the measure than
an overall reflection on the success/failure of the FPs, since
the amount of money spent through this route is small relative
to Member States' research budgets, or even the budgets of individual
European companies".
2.14 POST also
records the outcomes of various other evaluations of the overall
impact of the Framework Programmes. A study carried out at Strasbourg
University in 1994 attempted boldly-perhaps too boldly-to put
numbers on the average economic benefit to participants in 50
projects in the BRITE/EURAM programme (advanced technologies and
materials). It suggested an overall ratio of EU grant to direct
economic benefit of 1:13, and a ratio of grant to indirect benefit
of 1:4.
