The new ERC : science must trump politics

Angelika Niebler

Angelika Niebler, chair of the European Parliament committee that created the popular new European Research Council, vows to protect its political independence.

Last November, the European Parliament created a new kind of beast in the Brussels bureaucracy: the European Research Council, an EU executive agency to fund scientists – but without any regard for the usual political horse-trading that marks most other EU R&D programmes. So far, the ERC has been a hit: its first call for grant proposals garnered 9,167 applications – nearly twice the expectation even of its secretary general, Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker.

But the ERC’s real test is coming. Will it really be able to ignore the national lobbies, and award the grants later this year based solely on their scientific excellence, as judged by the panels of scientists it has formed to vet applications? Or will it feel the need for political correctness – making sure a fair share of the money goes to politically worthy but scientifically unimpressive countries like Romania or Portugal?

Angelika Niebler is chair of the key Parliamentary committee that created the ERC, the Industry, Research and Energy Committee. A member of the German Christian Social Union party, she has been a strong advocate for the political independence of the ERC.  She discussed that recently with Science|Business Editor Richard L. Hudson.

You’ve said the ERC should be politically independent. How will you ensure that?

This is really crucial. If the ERC is not independent, then we can forget about it.

If we get information that political influence – irrespective of from what side, be it from the member states or members of Parliament – affected the decisions, then we will take it up in our committee and urge the responsible people at the Commission and the Director General and the Scientific Council to explain it to us.

We have instruments to ensure its independence. We have a review (scheduled), so if it’s not properly working then we can think about a different structure. We have the composition of the Scientific Council. And we have the typical Parliamentarian instruments – asking questions, talking to journalists like you, bringing the issue up on the political agenda.

But isn’t some of the political pressure going to come from the Parliament itself?

I don’t think so. My belief is that we will refrain from influencing the Scientific Council and the Director General.

What will you do if most of the grants go to Britain and Scandinavia – that is, very far from the usual EU formula of juste retour to every nation?

If the decisions are based on serious grounds, which I think will be the case, then one has to accept them.

Consider my own country, Germany. We had this Excellence Initiative last year (to select a small number of “elite” universities to receive extra funding.)  The result was that there were three universities of excellence selected in Germany – all in the south: two in Bavaria and one in Baden-Württemberg. We had political rumours that it couldn’t be the case to have three excellent universities only in the south. I know there was heavy lobbying. But I know the decision was based purely on which university is really excellent. So I think it showed that if people really think independence is important, it can work.

Now if you look at the scientists on the Scientific Council, you have Mr Winnacker (now ERC secretary general, and previously, as head of the German Research Council, the man responsible for the German university decision.) Why should he let somebody influence him? He resigned form the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, and he took this job because he wants to do something for young researchers. The same is true if you look at Professor Kafatos [Fotis Kafatos is chairman of the council, and a professor at Imperial College London]. I rely on the scientists and the people in this committee.

What about independence from the Commission?

The Commission would like to keep the structure, for the launch period, that the ERC is an executive agency and not an independent structure – but for that reason I think they are very cautious about influencing it. They are providing staff. I rely on Winnacker and Kafatos. They know what they want to do with the ERC.

Will the ERC duplicate work of the national research councils?

I don’t see the risk. If you have a look at the research budget in Germany, 90 per cent of all research is funded nationally, and 10 per cent is European funded. Then break that down, and the budget of the ERC is only part of that. I don’t think there’s too much influence.

But why should there be an ERC, at all?

What has been missing on the European level is that we invest in basic research. The core of the ERC is to invest in basic research, to allow young people who have a good idea to get the money. This the most important thing: that this freedom is there. Of course, you can’t expect that every proposal funded with ERC money will be a success. The risk of failure is high. But if we get one or two proposals that run, then I think the whole ERC is worth doing.