The trouble with Framework Programmes

While the academics praised FP6 for making “substantial” achievements, their criticisms not only make for interesting reading, they also reveal fault lines that may extend into Framework Programme 7 (FP7) – and beyond.

For example, they say that the poor quality of data gathered on the programme makes it impossible to say if the target of allocating 15 per cent of the funds to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) was met. And in any case, they argue, such a general goal is rather arbitrary. “Other ways to safeguard the adequate participation of SMEs in future FPs need to be developed,” says the report.

The report also points to a need for more stakeholder consultation and more logic to be applied in designing programmes.

The review was published without fanfare two weeks ago, with the Commission deciding not to issue a press release. But far from not wanting to draw attention to the report’s conclusions, spokeswoman Catherine Ray said this was because a detailed response is being prepared, which will be published in the coming months.

“We take the criticism in the review very seriously,” she said, adding that FP7, the successor research programme running from 2007 to 2013, has been structured differently and should avoid some of the worst pitfalls of its predecessor.

“FP7 has tried harder to include the private sector, especially with its joint technology initiatives,” she said.

The criticism about bureaucracy has also been addressed, she added. Applying to participate in FP7 should be easier, especially for SMEs, because applications can be made electronically now, unlike under PF6.

Also, once a person, or consortium, has applied for one research programme their details are stored and there is no need to repeat the form-filling to apply for another programme.

“This unique registration facility is web-based and should make life much easier for applicants,” Ray said.

What the experts said

While FP6 has strengthened the European Research Area, the expert group says it was successful, “Only to a limited extent in bringing the new knowledge all the way to the industrial sector.” Indeed, the review notes with some concern that a downward trend in industrial FP participation continued under FP6.

The overall structure of FP6 has also been called into question, with the review stating that, “A more transparent consultation with stakeholder communities and a more explicit ‘programme logic’ would have produced a more robust overall FP design.”

In the future, more attention needs to be given to the relationship between framework programmes and R&D activities in the Member States. “The FP cannot be treated as either a substitute or a coordinator for Member State R&D policies, nor as a remedy for local problems or cohesion issues.”

Instead, it may act as a ‘coordinator’ or ‘lubricant’ for multi party initiatives, such as the ERA-NETs, alongside and in parallel with the traditional collaborative activities, which should not be weakened.

Bureaucracy holds back both industry and new applicants

“Complexity and lack of timeliness in administration” are “stains on the reputation of the FP both within and without Europe,” say the academics. They claim that these flaws are a significant disincentive to participation in FP activities. They have for instance been cited as, “Among the major factors contributing to the continuing decrease in industrial interest in the FP.”

The complexities of making an application and the contractual procedures raise significant barriers to entry at the proposal stage, especially for first time applicants, be these research groups, firms, or organisations from new Member States.

The Expert Group says it has not seen evidence that the Commission, the Council and the Parliament sufficiently recognise the requirement for management processes which could cope with the complexity of a FP, with many goals, new instruments and approaches. “More flexible application and contract procedures, based on a fuller, experienced-based understanding of the operations of high-performing research procedures are needed,” it says.

There is also a call for the public accountability of the FP to be increased – not through audit control, but through clear procedures and access to information at all stages and, where appropriate, through open access to the research results obtained through the FP funding.

The review also gives advice on what should be considered in the planned interim evaluation of the current, FP7, saying, “Particular attention should be given to progress achieved in respect of simplification, the gender issue, and the issues of knowledge infrastructure and the inadequate level of industrial participation.”

The future of the Framework Programmes – FP8

Looking forward to FP8 and beyond, the overarching objective for future FPs, and indeed for all aspects of European research policy, should be to increase the attractiveness of the European research ecology, the experts argue. They suggest that the EU focuses on making Europe the first choice for performing and capitalising on the fruits of research through knowledge transfer, commercialisation, social development and other routes. Procedures, they say, should be developed that are capable of providing substance to this idea.

Before proposing plans for FP8, the reports argues that the Commission should analyse and more clearly document the current and future rationale of the FP at both aggregate and micro levels. This would involve ensuring that the number of goals set for a FP were practical, and that the Commission documented and made more transparent the consultation processes involved in designing a FP at both the aggregate and the Work Programme level.

However, they argue, an FP needs to be more than a reflection of what competing beneficiary or stakeholder communities want of it at the outset. It needs the flexibility to evolve and change.

The experts are concerned that the FP might become a substitute for the research policies of Member States, or a cure for other local problems. They suggest that it  should be better synchronised with national research efforts to strengthen and structure the ERA.

Avoiding a monoculture

At present, the Commission and the FP have a hand in almost all European RTD cooperations, risking a monoculture of thinking and ideas and precluding the benefits of diversity in the European research system.

The ‘Third country’ terminology, they argue, must be abandoned as it stands in the way of strategic thinking. It should, they say, be replaced by three strategies: one for EU FP collaboration with the developing countries; one for collaboration with growth economies; and one for collaboration with industrialised countries outside the EU.

The report also argues that the budget for cooperation with the major existing (such as US and Japan) and emerging economies (including India, China and Brazil) should be increased dramatically and strategies tailored to reinforce mobility with these countries. This would, the report claims, engage them as partners in the mainstream of the FP, thereby strengthening both the quality and purpose of ERA. The report also suggests that FP activities for collaborating with developing countries should concentrate on topics and technologies of relevance for development and where EU scientists are globally in the lead.

The experts also want to see a new bottom-up format for testing research directions, and original ways of achieving collaboration. This format should, they say, be swift and risk-taking, with ‘scientific excellence’ the only criterion for selection.

Broadening the range of participants

The report argues that SME participation is important and should be encouraged. However, it suggests that the utility of an overall 15 per cent target should be re-examined in favour of mechanisms which are more in line with the relevant industrial dynamics.

Steps, the experts say, must be taken to substantially increase the participation of female researchers in FP projects, by means of much more pro-active approaches such as (re)introducing specific gender equality actions (after quality criteria) as a condition of funding in large instruments. They want to see statistics systematically and continuously gathered, analysed and monitored, and actions taken if progress towards equality is not being achieved.

They argue that it is crucial for Europe’s future scientific and technological vitality and competitiveness to ensure that research is seen by young people as an attractive career choice. Focusing the FP more strongly on addressing the major global needs and challenges could be one way of addressing this issue, they claim.

The report also suggests that the FP should promote the mobility of young European scientists, and allow more students and young researchers from scientifically emerging countries to study and work in Europe.

Overhauling administration

The experts also push for a radical overhaul of FP administration, not incremental tinkering. The Commission should, they say, engage external help to review its procedures – including its financial control procedures – with specific targets put in place. These would include reducing the ‘headline’ time-to-contract indicator by 50 per cent, and moving from a cost basis in contracts to a price basis, so that cost no longer needs to be audited – except perhaps for a small number of projects.

In its support of scientific projects, the Commission should continue to change from a contract to a grant basis, they argue.

The experts also want to see the Commission broaden its evaluation culture considerably. To date, evaluations of the FP have tended to focus on the planning and organisation of the most recent programme. There is, they claim, a significant deficit in our understanding of the effects of the FP over time and on the wider context (including institutions; disciplines and technologies; industry; society at large; and policy).

While they agree that the programme-focused style of evaluation promoted by the Commission’s internal regulations is important, they argue that it is hard to develop a good understanding of how the FP works and to improve it without also considering these other perspectives.

The Expert Group that reviewed FP6 was made up by:

• Prof Ernst Th. Rietschel (Germany) Chairman of the Expert Group, President - Leibniz Association, Berlin, Professor Emeritus, University of Lübeck

• Dr. Erik Arnold (United Kingdom), Rapporteur, Director - Technopolis Group, Brighton

• Prof. Antanas (Lithuania), Dean - Faculty of Fundamental Sciences, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius

• Dr. Andrew Dearing, (United Kingdom), Secretary General - EIRMA, Paris

• Prof. Irwin Feller (United States of America), Senior Visiting Scientist – American Association for the Advancement of Science, Professor Emeritus, Economics - Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania

• Prof. Sylvie Joussaume (France), Professor of Climatology - Director of Research, CNRS, IPSL, Gif sur Yvette,former Director of Institut national des Sciences de l’Univers, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris

• Mr. Aris Kaloudis (Greece/Norway), MSc, Head of Research - NIFU STEP, Oslo

• Prof. Lene Lange (Denmark) Vice-Dean - Faculty of Engineering, Science and Medicine Aalborg University, Copenhagen

• Prof. Jerzy Langer (Poland), Professor – Institute of Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Former Vice-Minister of Science, Poland

• Dr. Victoria Ley (Spain), Director - National Evaluation and Foresight Agency (ANEP), Ministry of Science and Innovation, Madrid

• Dr. Riitta Mustonen (Finland),Vice-President (Research) - Academy of Finland, Helsinki

• Dr. Derek Pooley (CBE) (United Kingdom), former CEO - UK Atomic Energy Authority, London

• Prof. Nicoletta Stame (Italy), Professor of Sociology - University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Rome