136.Twenty-first century science does not recognise national boundaries; it is a global endeavour. No single country can act alone to address the challenges and threats facing society today. When modern-day scientific endeavours are considered as a whole, we agree with the two key trends identified by Dr David Hughes, Global Head of Technology Scouting, Syngenta:
“The first one is convergence, which is the blurring of scientific boundaries. The second is internationalisation.”
137.Interdisciplinarity was touched on as part of our discussion of the EU’s funding system for science and research in Chapter 4, and we will now focus on the internationalisation of science and the necessary collaboration this involves.
138.Concomitant with the evolution of this trend towards internationalisation has been the rise of ‘big science’; that is, science performed on an increasingly large scale. We heard that while the USA was the pioneer initially, other countries have caught up. Professor Steve Cowley, Chief Executive of the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) and Head of the EURATOM/Culham Centre for Fusion Energy (CCFE), told us:
“In the years since the early 1980s, Europe has become the world leader in big science. More and more science is progressing towards big science.”
139.The importance of scientific collaboration to the productivity and vitality of UK science and research was repeatedly highlighted. Indeed, it was perhaps the only area we explored where there was almost complete agreement. The submission from the Government identified the UK’s top collaborative partners during 2008–12 as the United States, Germany, France, Italy, and Australia.
140.Collaboration is vital across the spectrum of scientific disciples. However, its importance in the medical research sector was said to be particularly important. The Association of Medical Research Charities asserted:
“In some instances, collaborative research is vital. For example in the case of rare cancers it is often necessary to recruit patients from multiple countries in order to conduct trials with sufficient numbers of participants.”
141.We received substantial evidence about the role that EU membership plays in facilitating collaboration. A number of times however, EU and European collaboration were conflated. We view the role of the EU in this respect to be tripartite in nature involving:
142.Professor Dame Janet Thornton told us of the function of EU funding for science and research in terms of building collaborations: “EU grants serve to form the collaborative umbrella that joins together that nation state funding.”
143.The Government also emphasised the value of EU schemes over and above national funding programmes:
“EU programmes and initiatives provide access to opportunities and co-operation on science and research that are often difficult to provide at national level, either because they are too costly (nuclear fusion, for example) or because the sample size in any one country is so small (rare diseases, for example).”
144.We heard about how a supranational framework, like that provided by the EU, can simplify collaborations when compared to reliance on bilateral or multilateral agreements. Funding schemes that span Member States enable multinational collaborations that may not be possible with only national sources of funding—due to the complexities of aligning funding sources, timeframes and arranging a number of bilateral/multilateral agreements etc. Professor Dame Julia Goodfellow, President, Universities UK (UUK), was among those who stressed the importance of this aspect of EU funding:
“this is money for cross-country collaboration so, from that point of view, it is very important and perhaps unique in some way.”
145.As outlined in Chapter 4, many EU funding schemes and programmes require or encourage collaboration—both between researchers in different Member States and between those in academia and industry. A number of submissions presented case studies of projects, programmes and organisations where EU involvement had been crucial. Individual details of these have not been included in this report but they represent a valuable resource and can be found in the written evidence.
146.The EU aspires to the creation of a European Research Area (ERA) to capitalise on cross-continental collaboration and ensure maximum impact of resources. The Royal Society provided some explanation of the ERA:
“This is intended to be: ‘a unified research area open to the world based on the Internal Market, in which researchers, scientific knowledge and technology circulate freely and through which the Union and its Member States strengthen their scientific and technological bases, their competitiveness and their capacity to collectively address grand challenges.’”
147.There is no formal membership of the ERA; it represents a conceptual network rather than a tangible zone. The European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC) monitors the ERA and comprises the Commission and Member States, with Associated Countries as observers. As part of the ERA the Commission also has partnership agreements with a number of representative bodies, such as Science Europe and the League of European Research Universities (LERU).
148.Collaboration, particularly the role that EU membership plays, is hard to quantify. It is very difficult to ascertain whether the UK’s collaborative relationships would have developed in the same way without EU membership. Minister of State for Universities and Science, Jo Johnson MP, told us that:
“I think it is undeniable that we were a big player in science long before the European Union came into existence. Many of our great universities have been around and were successful as centres of learning long before even the countries that are now part of the European Union came into existence”
149.David Walker, Head of Policy at the Academy of Social Sciences, urged caution in over-emphasising the role of EU membership. He pointed out the complexity encountered in attempting to determine how collaborations were instigated:
“There is a rich pattern of exchanges, but pinning responsibility for those to the European Union and its programmes is much more difficult.”
150.Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz highlighted the importance of attempting to quantify collaboration and presented some analysis:
“If you take UK participation in that programme [Framework Programme 7, 2007–13], 100,000 collaborative links were established as a consequence; 18,500 of those were with Germany; France was second with nearly 13,000, and then Italy with 12,000. Consequential on those Framework Programme 7 links, 10,000 of those links were made within the UK.”
151.We also explored the relationship between EU membership and the development of non-EU and non-European collaborations. We considered suggestions that collaborative EU schemes can attract and facilitate interactions with non-European countries. Conversely, we also investigated concerns that the focus of the EU, and stipulation in some cases, on EU Member State and Associated Country collaborations can inhibit interactions with non-European countries.
152. Technopolis suggested that EU membership does not prohibit non-EU collaborations:
“it [the EU] provides a framework that is often more attractive than inter-governmental agreements. The EU does not have legal competence over science policy in the Member States and there is nothing to prevent them [EU countries and non-EU countries] from working together outside of the EU framework in whichever way they choose.”
153.On international, non-EU collaboration and whether there is an ‘opportunity cost’ for Member States associated with having to collaborate with EU Member States, Dr Mike Galsworthy, Programme Director for Scientists for EU, argued the contrary. He described the EU as a “catalyst for our capacity to reach around the globe”. He elaborated on Horizon 2020 and non-EU/non-European participation as follows:
“The size of the programme means that it is comprehensive in subject areas and well-known as a brand—ensuring a certain quality—and therefore, should other countries, such as the US, want to collaborate with the UK, there is a huge channel of potential for doing that through the EU programme, because of all these factors and because you can bring in other partners.”
154.As alluded to by Dr Galsworthy, the EU has international agreements for scientific and technological co-operation with 20 countries. These create a framework for participation in joint projects, sharing of facilities, staff exchanges or the organisation of specific events.
155.Professor Robin Grimes, Chief Scientific Adviser, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, cited an example of the role of the UK’s EU membership in facilitating interactions with a non-EU, non-European country. On UK-Chinese scientific interactions, he told us:
“We work with the EU in China to maximise our policy impact and our influence in China to make changes to the enabling framework, which allows better conditions for UK-China collaboration, including on intellectual property protection, for example, where we align our lobbying with the EU and use the EU-China dialogue to push forward on that sort of difficult issue. Again, we come back to the point that it [EU membership] really complements our bilateral activities in this regard.”
156.UKspace also suggested a positive role for EU membership in facilitating international connections:
“One of the benefits of Britain’s EU membership is that non-EU organisations (from USA, Japan, etc.) often find UK organisations attractive for collaboration because of our EU membership.”
157.It was repeatedly put to us that one of the most significant aspects of the UK’s EU membership is the provision of opportunities to collaborate. We view the EU to have three main influences: the provision of collaborative funding schemes and programmes; ensuring researcher mobility; and facilitating and fostering participation in shared pan-European research infrastructures.
158.Many would maintain that the provision of collaborative opportunities is perhaps the most significant benefit that EU membership affords science and research in the UK. These collaborative opportunities are not just between Member States but can extend to non-EU and non-European countries.
159.Freedom of movement is a fundamental principle of the EU enshrined in Article 45 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). This entitles EU citizens to:
160.Free movement of workers also applies, in general terms, to countries in the European Economic Area (EEA): Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. There is also a bilateral agreement in place with Switzerland.
161.In the context of science and research, freedom of movement enables mobility of researchers/students and simplifies the recruitment of scientists from EU Member States and the EEA (plus Switzerland) to the UK. There was a very strong consensus in the evidence we received from across the science community—academia, industry and charities—of the value of researcher mobility afforded by freedom of movement.
162.We heard particularly strong assertions from the UK higher education (HE) sector. Professor Sir Peter Downes, Convenor of Universities Scotland and Principal & Vice-Chancellor, University of Dundee, offered one such opinion:
“The principle of freedom of movement of people is not only one of the most important principles of the EU but one of the most important benefits of EU membership to higher education in the UK.”
163.Professor Sir Mark Walport, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, also highlighted its importance and provided some quantification:
“At the moment, 30% of European Research Council grantees working in the UK come from other Member States; and 15% of UK academic staff are from continental Europe, which compares with 11% of the whole of non-EU, so not only the funding but the people are very important.”
164.The business community emphasised the positive impact that researcher mobility has on their ability to recruit the most talented staff. Professor Ric Parker, Director of Research and Technology, Rolls-Royce plc, representing the Royal Academy of Engineering, highlighted the value of the EU’s principle of freedom of movement to Rolls-Royce plc, citing how it enables easy movement of employees across the company’s multiple European sites.
165. A number of EU schemes enable researcher and student mobility across the Europe including the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA) and Erasmus Plus schemes (see Chapter 4, Figure 2 for how these schemes fit into the EU environment that supports science and research). These schemes were frequently praised.
166.Movement of researchers and students in two directions is vital. This enables both talented individuals to enter the UK as well as allowing UK citizens to develop specialised skills and knowledge overseas. Professor Andrew Harrison, Chief Executive, Diamond Light Source, suggested this as a reason for the excellence within the UK science community:
“The reason why many UK scientists are as trained and skilled as they are is that they have also gone abroad.”
167.A corollary of the ease of researcher mobility within the EU and EEA (plus Switzerland) could be that international, non-European researchers are put at a disadvantage. However, we did not receive substantial evidence of such a disadvantage. Instead, we consider that it is the UK’s own immigration policy, rather than the ease of researcher mobility within the EU and EEA (plus Switzerland), that underlies any disadvantage to non-European researchers. Although outside the scope of our inquiry, we heard a number of concerns about the current visa system for the recruitment of non-EU researchers and students.
168.The prospect of a restriction in researcher mobility has sparked wide concern across the science and research community. The submission from Syngenta highlighted a perspective from large business:
“[if] restrictions were placed on recruitment from the EU then Syngenta’s ability to employ the best talent and scientific minds would be compromised. This would not only impact our ability to remain as one of Syngenta’s leading R&D sites but would also hinder the professional development of our UK scientists due to reduced interactions.”
169.Professor Siegfried Russwurm, Chief Technology Officer & Member of the Managing Board of Siemens AG, shared these concerns and presented an example to us of how Siemens reacted when researcher mobility was curtailed in South Africa:
“The South African Government have greatly tightened the inflow of qualified workers, with the result that as this expertise is not available on the labour market in South Africa, we [Siemens] have reduced our activities and refrained from offering some of our Siemens systems because, frankly, we do not have the qualified experts.”
170.Restriction of researcher mobility is, of course, a hypothetical scenario and not inevitably a consequence of the UK leaving the EU (see Chapter 6, Scenarios).
171.The researcher mobility afforded by the EU’s fundamental principle of freedom of movement is of critical importance to the UK science community, including academia, businesses and charities. It is vital that the flow of researchers—both coming to the UK and UK nationals working overseas—is not restricted. We conclude that researcher mobility must be protected if UK science and research is to remain world-leading.
172.Our report on international science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) students, published in 2014, highlighted concerns about the negative impact of Government immigration policy on international recruitment from outside the EU. We are concerned that this situation appears to have changed little since the publication of our report and we recommend that the Government reviews its policy in this area.
173.Sharing large research infrastructures (RIs) allows greater efficiencies of cost, collaborative opportunities and access to a wider range of facilities than would be possible if hosted alone. We explored this area in detail in our report on scientific infrastructure.
174.Europe hosts a number of shared RIs. Indeed, Professor Steve Cowley, Chief Executive Officer, UK Atomic Energy Authority, told us that: “many of the great scientific instruments of our time, of the 21st century, are now in Europe.”
175.Professor Cowley continued:
“There is no question but that the European infrastructures have made us better and, by making us better, they make us collaborate with more people in the world.”
176.EU membership is not a requirement to participate in most shared European RIs. However, the EU does play a role in the participation of Member States and Associated Countries. Professor John Womersley, Chief Executive Officer of the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) and current Chair of the European Strategic Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI), outlined the function and limits of the European Commission in facilitating collaborations to address large scale challenges:
“the way to address these big science questions requires international collaboration and the pooling of resources. The mechanisms to do that are facilitated by the European Commission, but not funded by it”
177.Wide access to many RIs is available to non-EU Member States as well as to countries outside Europe. We have found there to be confusion within the science community with regards to which infrastructures are EU-managed and which are European in nature. In terms of the latter, the UK is involved directly rather than as a Member State of the EU.
178.Although not a pre-requisite for involvement, EU membership can facilitate influence and provide platforms to collaborate. The European Commission outlined their role in European shared RIs:
“The scope of the research infrastructures part of the programme is to facilitate the development of world-class research infrastructures in Europe, to integrate and open national research infrastructures, to foster the innovation potential of the infrastructures and their human resources, and to reinforce European policy and international cooperation through synergies by setting up partnerships between relevant policy makers, funding bodies or advisory groups.”
179.Pan-European RIs are funded by participating countries. The EU can aid planning and coordination of these through the European Strategic Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI). ESFRI aims to support a coherent, strategy-led approach to policy-making on research infrastructures in Europe, and to facilitate multilateral initiatives leading to the better use and development of research infrastructures. Professor John Womersley is the current Chair of ESFRI. He told us of the nature and function of the group:
“ESFRI is hosted by the European Commission: That means it provides meeting rooms and a secretariat, but it has no budget from the EC; in fact, it has no budget from anywhere. It is a set of delegates from national governments who come together to construct a mutually agreed roadmap of next-generation scientific facilities that they will then voluntarily decide to join or not, on the basis of individual national contributions.”
180.The UK hosts the headquarters of five pan-European RIs. These are:
181.In addition, the UK houses ten facilities that are part of pan-European RIs headquartered in other European countries and is also a member of pan-European RIs entirely based outside the UK, such as the European Hard X-Ray Free Electron Laser (European XFEL) based in Germany.
182.As well as being involved with pan-European RIs, the UK is also a part of intergovernmental research organisations, including CERN and the ITER fusion experiment. Each of these organisations has its own institutional arrangements and membership rules. The EU plays a different role in each; some were founded before the formation of the EU. It is difficult to quantify the role of the EU in forming and/or maintaining these bilateral and multi-lateral intergovernmental collaborations and, for those founded after the EU was created, to assess whether they would have developed in its absence.
183.Professor John Womersley told us that the UK had been hesitant in hosting shared RIs in the past. However, he indicated that this attitude had now changed:
“I think that [attitude] has shifted because we have rediscovered the knowledge that there are long-term benefits to having such things on our soil. Those come from the economic impacts, the spin-outs; from the fact that these facilities serve as an ecosystem for small businesses, or even for large companies to locate around them, and that they have a pool of staff who can go on to stimulate economic activity.”
184.The next section will look at three pan-European RIs and two intergovernmental research organisations in more detail: the European Molecular Biology Laboratory-European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) and ELIXIR; the European Social Survey (ESS); the European Organisation of Nuclear Research (CERN); and the ITER nuclear fusion experiment. These will serve to highlight the difference between European science and EU science and are chosen to reflect the variety and nature of different types of European and/or EU collaborative infrastructure projects.
185.The European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) conducts basic research in molecular biology, engages in technology development and provides infrastructure, facilities, training and services for researchers.
186.An intergovernmental treaty organisation established in 1974, EMBL has 21 countries as full members. All of these countries are European; there are two non-European associate Member States (Australia and Argentina). Countries with full membership include both EU Member States and non-Member States; EU membership plays no part in allowing membership of EMBL.
187.EMBL’s headquarters and main laboratory are located in Heidelberg, Germany. All four countries that house EMBL outstations are Member States. The outstations are:
188.EMBL member countries make a contribution to EMBL’s programmes, receive access to all services and programmes and are responsible for all important decisions about the organisation and its activities taken in the EMBL Council. Associate Member States have a reduced membership contribution to the budget of the laboratory and participate in EMBL Council meetings as observers.
189.EMBL exists and acts independently from the EU, but synergises activities with the European Commission. Cooperation is based on a Memorandum of Understanding implemented through biannual work plans. This agreement grants the European Commission ‘observer status’ in EMBL.
190.The UK was the third highest individual contributor to EMBL in 2014, after Germany and France. EMBL does not receive direct funding from the EU; however, EU funding programmes for research remain the biggest external funding source for EMBL. In 2014, 30% of the external funding awarded to EMBL originated from the EU.
191.The branch of EMBL located in the UK, EMBL-EBI, hosts the European Life-science Infrastructure for Biological Information (ELIXIR). ELIXIR is a pan-European research infrastructure (RI) for biological data. It is an initiative to coordinate, sustain and integrate Europe’s life science bioinformatics resources. Sixteen countries (as well as EMBL) are members of ELIXIR; these are all European and include Member States and non-Member States such as Switzerland, Norway and Israel. An additional two countries have observer status. ELIXIR has been recognized by ESFRI as a priority Research Infrastructure for Europe, and has since been awarded a major Horizon 2020 grant in recognition of this.
192.Though EU membership does not influence the UK’s ability to be a member of EMBL or ELIXIR, it was suggested to us that EU membership does play a role in the location of EMBL laboratories and the decision to headquarter ELIXIR in the UK. The submission received from EMBL-EBI stated:
“EMBL-EBI would not have been able to participate so fully, or even at all, in these infrastructure projects were the UK not an EU member, and EMBL-EBI’s selection as the hub for ELIXIR would certainly have been in question were the UK not part of the EU.”
193.Professor Dame Janet Thornton, former Director of EMBL-EBI and coordinator of the preparatory phase of ELIXIR, said of the establishment of ELIXIR:
“I do not think that would have happened if we were not part of the EU.”
194.The European Social Survey (ESS) is a pan-European research infrastructure whose headquarters are located within City University in London.
195.The ESS was one of the first RIs to be awarded European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) status. ERIC status was developed by the European Commission to provide a supranational legal framework to facilitate the creation of shared research infrastructures between EU countries in response to concerns that national laws did not fulfil the needs of new European infrastructures. Only Member States, Associated Countries, Third Countries (other than Associated Countries) and intergovernmental organisations can be members of an ERIC. Twelve research infrastructures, including ESS, currently have ERIC status. We heard from Professor Kurt Deketelaere about the value of the development of ERIC status:
“the ERIC regulation that the European Union has adopted, which makes it possible to negotiate to organise in a legal way consortia for the building up of research infrastructure, this has been a very beneficial initiative.”
196.The ESS ERIC is a cross-national survey that has been conducted every two years in Europe since 2001. It measures the attitudes, beliefs and behaviour patterns of diverse populations in more than 30 nations.
197.There are 15 member countries of the ESS ERIC, 14 of which are EU Member States. Norway has recently joined but is not an EU Member State. The single observer country is Switzerland. All participating countries are required to contribute to the central coordination costs of the ESS ERIC; this contribution is made up of a basic membership fee and an additional amount, calculated according to the GDP of each country.
198.Professor Paul Boyle, President and Vice-Chancellor, University of Leicester, told us of the value of the UK’s participation in the ESS ERIC:
“One country could not establish it financially, but there is also the question of getting the buy in from the various organisations that need to be involved. Similarly, if you are not one of the players, you do not shape and influence the survey questions to anywhere near the same degree as the countries that are contributing through the European collaboration. Although we allow other countries to be involved, inevitably the influence on how that survey shapes up is challenging if you are not one of the funders through the European Community.”
199.The European Organisation of Nuclear Research (CERN) is an intergovernmental research organisation, the facilities of which are situated near Geneva in Switzerland. The largest particle physics laboratory in the world, CERN houses particle accelerators and detectors, such as the Large Hadron Collider. CERN organises and sponsors international research collaborations, promoting contacts between scientists and interchange with other laboratories and institutes. The experiments conducted at CERN are the result of large-scale international collaborations.
200.The UK is involved directly in CERN as one of 21 member nations. Members include 18 EU Member States as well as Switzerland, Norway and Israel. Professor John Womersley emphasised to us that the facilities hosted by CERN are a European rather than an EU research infrastructure:
“when you talk about things such as CERN as a European success, indeed it is, but it is a voluntary collaboration of European governments and, in fact, it predates the establishment of the European Union.”
201.A number of nations from outside Europe have non-member status at CERN, meaning they do not participate in organisational decision making but have co-operation agreements to participate in specific projects.
202.The EU is not directly involved in the organisation of CERN activities nor its policies but has ‘Observer Status’. In 2014, the EU provided 1.6% of CERN’s funding. While this direct investment from the EU at CERN is relatively low, EU-funded research projects conduct work at CERN and collaborate with researchers who conduct work at CERN. Research Councils UK (RCUK) said of the interactions between CERN and the EU:
“CERN then engages in a broad portfolio of EU-funded programmes for research and e-infrastructures, for example through providing key inputs into coordinating the EU-funded computing grid initiative alongside its USA and other regional counterparts, to build a global computing infrastructure. EU funding has contributed to the development of the high luminosity upgrades for the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and the development of advanced detector technologies.”
203.ITER is a multinational project and involves the EU, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the USA. It is an intergovernmental research organisation and the UK’s contribution is managed by the EU; the UK is not involved directly. As Professor John Womersley said to us:
“ITER/JET at Culham is one of the few areas where there really is an EU flag on the outside of a big research project.”
204.ITER is intended to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of nuclear fusion as an energy source and to pave the way for a functioning fusion power plant. When construction is complete, it will be the world’s largest experimental tokamak nuclear fusion reactor. It is located in the south of France.
205.The EU’s commitments to the ITER Agreement were agreed through the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) Treaty. The EU is contributing 45% of the construction phase (buildings, machine components and assembly) cost and 34% of the cost of operation, deactivation and decommissioning of the facility. The other six parties are contributing approximately 9% each. The current cost estimates for the EU contribution to the ITER construction phase (2007–20) amount to €6.6 billion. UK industry has so far been awarded over €300 million worth of contracts as part of the ITER project (ranked third behind France and Italy).
206.The UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) is involved in the UK’s interactions with ITER via the EU. On the UK’s membership of the EU and the effect this has on collaboration, the submission from the UKAEA stated:
“Full involvement means that the UK has excellent unhindered access to facilities, leading science teams and the R&D developed, including JET and ITER. Indeed, EU funding and collaboration is essential to sustain the world leading capability of Culham and to position the UK in the technologies of the future fusion (and fission) economy.”
207.The UK gains significant value from being involved in a number of pan-European Research Infrastructures (RIs), both as a host country and as a user of facilities hosted outside of the UK. We conclude that such European based, but non-EU, RIs, although formally independent of the EU, are in fact interlinked to varying degrees.
101 (Dr David Hughes)
102 (Prof Steve Cowley)
103 Written evidence from HM Government ()
104 Written evidence from the Association of Medical Research Charities ()
105 (Prof Dame Janet Thornton)
106 Written evidence from HM Government ()
107 (Prof Dame Julia Goodfellow)
108 The following submissions highlighted case studies: ISARIC and ERGO at the Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford (); Europlanet Consortium (); National Physical Laboratory (); the UK Atomic Energy Authority (); the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (); and ELIXIR ()
109 Written evidence from the Royal Society ()
110 (Jo Johnson MP)
111 (David Walker)
112 (Prof Sir Leszek Borysiewicz)
113 Written evidence from Technopolis ()
114 (Dr Mike Galsworthy)
115 (Dr Mike Galsworthy)
116 (Prof Robin Grimes)
117 Written evidence from UKspace ()
118 European Commission, Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion: Free Movement—EU nationals: [accessed 12 April 2016]
119 (Prof Sir Peter Downes)
120 (Prof Sir Mark Walport)
121 (Prof Ric Parker)
122 See evidence from (Prof Dame Helen Wallace), (Sir Emyr Jones Parry) and Universities UK ()
123 (Prof Andrew Harrison)
124 See evidence from (Prof Paul Boyle), (Prof Ric Parker), Research Councils UK (), the Russell Group (), Universities UK () and University Alliance ()
125 Written evidence from Syngenta ()
126 (Prof Siegfried Russwurm)
127 Science and Technology Committee, (4th Report, Session 2013–14, HL Paper 162)
128 Science and Technology Committee, (2nd Report, Session 2013–14, HL Paper 76)
129 (Prof Steve Cowley)
130 (Prof Steve Cowley)
131 (Prof John Womersley)
132 Written evidence from European Commission ()
133 (Prof John Womersley)
134 (Prof John Womersley)
135 Royal Society, UK research and the European Union: The role of the EU in funding UK research (December 2015): [accessed
12 April 2016], Written evidence from the European Bioinformatics Institute () and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory website: [accessed 12 April 2016] Much of the information that follows is drawn from these sources.
136 Written evidence from the European Bioinformatics Institute ()
137 (Prof Dame Janet Thornton)
138 European Society Survey: [accessed 12 April 2016] Much of the information that follows is drawn from this source.
139 On 2 December 2013, the Council adopted the Council Regulation EU n° 1261/2013 amending the Regulation EC 723–2009 concerning the ERIC. The participation of countries associated to the EU Research Framework Programmes in ERICs is now on the same footing as EU Member States. Their contributions to ERICs will be fully reflected in terms of membership and voting rights. The regulation entered into force on 26 December 2013.
140 European Commission, Research and Innovation, Infrastructures, European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) (February 2016): [accessed 12 April 2016]
141 (Prof Kurt Deketelaere)
142 (Prof Paul Boyle)
143 Royal Society, UK research and the European Union: The role of the EU in funding UK research (December 2015): [accessed
12 April 2016] and CERN: [accessed 12 April 2016] Much of the information that follows is drawn from these sources.
144 (Prof John Womersley)
145 Written evidence from Research Councils UK ()
146 Royal Society, UK research and the European Union: The role of the EU in funding UK research (December 2015): [accessed
12 April 2016] and ITER: [accessed 12 April 2016] Much of the information that follows is drawn from these sources.
147 (Prof John Womersley)
148 Initially created to coordinate the Member States’ research programmes for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, the Euratom Treaty today helps to pool knowledge, infrastructure and funding of nuclear energy. It ensures the security of atomic energy supply within the framework of a centralised monitoring system. EUR-Lex Access to European Union Law, Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) (October 2010): [accessed 12 April 2016]
149 Written evidence from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority ()