No special favours for technology institute

The controversial proposal to create a new European Institute of Technology (EIT) hit more political turbulence, as the European Union’s research commissioner questioned whether there should be preferential funding arrangements for the idea.

In an exclusive interview for Science|Business, Commissioner Janez Potočnik said there were no research funds earmarked for the project yet, and suggested that if the EIT were created it might have to apply for money from Framework Programme 7, or from the new European Research Council (ERC), on an equal basis with existing research institutes in Europe.

That would rule out any cash commitment this year, given the timescales in FP7 and the fact that the ERC is not due to begin work until 2007. Potočnik stressed that this was “purely my personal view”, adding: “Theoretically, if we would have [the EIT] in 2009, 2010 … it would apply [for funding] on an equal footing with other institutions.” That would push the EIT back well into the next decade.

Potočnik confirmed, however, that there was no money in the current FP7 or proposed ERC budgets set aside specifically for the EIT – nor did FP7 even mention the institute. And he questioned whether the EIT should receive preferential treatment simply because it had an “E” in its name. “Why?” asked Potočnik. “We have rules in the Framework Programme…a competitive call for proposals is a competitive call for proposals, full stop.”

Meanwhile, the influential League of European Research Universities has come up with its own proposals for an EIT – adding to the potential for disagreement. The league wants a networked cluster of existing universities, rather than a new university.

Potočnik called on the private sector to meet the lion’s share of any costs. “Of course the belief is that if the private sector would find that kind of institution interesting, there should be private funding included. And that is predominantly also where we believe that the funding should come.”

Delicate politics

The whole issue is a delicate one for the research commissioner. Potočnik’s brief embraces FP7 and the ERC, but as an educational institution the EIT would most likely come under the brief of the education commissioner, Ján Figel, who is responsible for the current round of consultations with stakeholders on the future of the project. One key stakeholder – possibly the key stakeholder – will be the ERC itself.

The commissioner characterised his suggestions as a possible way forward for the creation of the institute, first proposed by EU president José Manuel Barroso in February this year – to a storm of protest from other universities, and many multinational companies, who fear the project will siphon scarce EU funds away from other science and technology programmes.

The League of European Research Universities had previously criticised a number of aspects of the plan for an EIT. This week (Monday 23 May), it produced its own proposals. In essence, it wants an EIT to “have the complementary objectives of enhancing excellence in Europe’s best research groups in selected areas, and stimulating innovation processes in those same areas”.

The league opposes the idea of seconding researchers from universities to the EIT. In a statement, it said, “The only rational approach to the creation of an EIT is to add value to existing world-class groups, not by poaching from their universities which provide part of the intellectual hinterland that strengthens and inspires their efforts.”

‘An idea’

For weeks, Brussels technology-industry lobbyists have been buzzing with gossip that Barroso’s proposal also was hitting opposition form within the commission itself – though Potočnik himself demurred when asked if he opposed the plan. The EIT, he said, was “an idea”. He continued, “Not a bad idea. It’s a good one…It’s a wonderful idea, but still an idea.”

But Potočnik was adamant that that support for the EIT should not overshadow the ERC and the attention it needs – echoing forthright comments in March this year from the European University Association – and insisted that it was not a “magic answer” to the problems of European science. “The crucial thing is to get the ERC right, and functioning from 2007,” he said.

The commissioner also said it was too early to speculate on the structure of the EIT – whether, for example, it would be a virtual institution. “There are many proposals,” he said. “It is very important that we listen in this debate.”

The European Commission is due to announce a series of policy initiatives in two tranches later this year, in the autumn and towards the end of year. Potočnik confirmed that one of these statements – most likely in September – would cover the whole question of the EIT. This would have to deal with concerns about funding, which he admitted had existed “from the very beginning”, about how it would relate to the ERC, and whether it would be financed through FP7.

Until then, Potočnik said, “The final decision on how it will look and how it will function is still open.”

Next week: Potočnik, on the Lisbon Agenda.