Brussels, 30/05/2005 (Agence Europe) - As MEPs were preparing their arguments for the debates that were once again in danger of digressing, the concerns of researchers focused on four major aspects of the future framework research and development programme (FRDP): the overall financial package, research infrastructure, support form fundamental research and administrative simplification.
Initial impressions of the budget proposed on 6 April by the European Commission for research funding (EUR 78-449 over the 2007-13 period, if we add the 7th FRDP, nuclear research and activities from the “Competitiveness and Innovation” research programme) are that it is ambitious. Compared to the efforts by the USA and Japan, however, it remains modest. The president of the European Science Foundation, Bertil Andersson also underlined that even if the framework programme envelope is doubled, the 7th FRDP budget would be under 10% of all public research funding in the European Union. Many scientists now fear that this budget will be the first victim of budgetary rigour imposed in the EU25, despite the great speeches made on the famous Lisbon Strategy. Making cuts in this budget, in which three quarters are orientated to applied research and support for industry would simply mean renouncing the lever effect on competitiveness. In a recent article in The Scientist, the spokesperson for Europe Life Scientist Organisation (ELSO), Carol Featherstone, was afraid that governments of some Member States are taking advantage of the increase in Community research funding to reduce their national spending in the sector. Claude Truffin, General Director of the Research Department at the Free University of Brussels underlining the “budgetary coolness of some Member States” said that “it is crucial that we prevent funding simply sliding from one hand to another”. He also referred to the Lisbon objective of 3% of GDP for research and Belgium (but the remark is valid for most Member States): “researchers obviously want the 3% cap for research to be adhered to as much as for the cap for another 3%, that for the maximum deficit for public finance. Until now this is the only '3%' that researchers want to see in practice”.
The Commission envelope proposes that the allocation for infrastructure does not exceed EUR 3.987 bn over seven years (EUROPE 8923) but this could be complicated by interventions from structural funds. The whole scientific community sees this as essential. The Research Councils UK, which even before adoption of the 7th FRDP draft, called for a doubling of funding for infrastructure and fundamental research, bears this out. These two dimensions of the framework project are also just as important to Maria Nowakowska, vice rector of the University of Jagellone in Krakow, who highlights the lack of research infrastructure in new Member States. Nowakowska explains that Polish universities suffered from a real handicap at the outset of their participation in the 6th FRDP but that they had made progress with research partners and in getting to know procedures.
By highlighting collaborative research and technological platforms, the 7th framework programme is like the previous one and focuses on short term innovation. It is structured around thematic priorities set out by the political world but is, however, counterbalanced for the first time by a mechanism for promoting the bottom-up approach based on independent scientific choices through the European Research Council. Bertil Andersson does not hesitate in describing this new instrument as the “Champions League of European research”. Researchers say that this mechanism will allow for fundamental research to be funded up to the tune of EUR 12 bn over seven years and is essential for the future. They also highlight the need to preserve it in fact of the appetite of the business world and attempts to interfere by politicians. Claude Truffin said that European researchers had to defend “tooth and nail this encouraging evolution”.
Carol Featherstone spoke or the “nightmare” of administrative red tape and hoped that the European Commission would keep its promises on simplifying procedures. This simplification, which Bertil Andersson describes as a “decisive factor” for the success of the 7th FRDP does not exclusively depend on the Commission. The two branches of the legislative and budgetary authorities will have to reduce their demands on the matter. With regard to Member States, it will mean above all renouncing their right to look at every project before funding is agreed. The Commission proposed this but the first debate at the Council (EUROPE 8930) appears to suggest that they still are not ready. The affair is set to continue.