Political problems dog research budget

The European Union’s research and development budget for the next seven years is nearing completion, but a nagging political question still hovers over the debate: should the roughly €54 billion be spent exclusively on the Union’s crème de la crème in the scientific community – or should it be used to foster new talent from less well known regions and institutions?

The European Commission, the Union’s executive body is in no doubt whatsoever: excellence should be the only criteria for awarding the money.

“If you don’t focus totally on excellence then you are not serving the interests of European citizens who benefit from scientific breakthroughs,” said Janez Potocnik, European commissioner in charge of R&D, in a short interview recently.

Past research budgets have indeed helped foster advances in science and technology that the man or woman in the street now takes for granted. The GSM mobile phone standard was developed with R&D money from the Union.

Smart card technology, an area where Europe leads the world, has also benefited. Airbus once trailed behind its American rival Boeing. Partly thanks to EU research funding it now competes head on and is poised to launch the largest passenger airliner in the world.

Ongoing projects likely to affect all our lives in the future include the geo-positioning satellite system called Galileo, which features prominently in the new R&D budget, Framework Programme 7, or FP7.

So does ITER – the multi-billion euro nuclear fusion project based in southern France, which hopes to emulate the power of the sun and provide the world with safe, renewable nuclear energy in the future.

Industry and academia largely agree with the Commission’s focus on excellence.

“There is no question that excellence must be the main driver for FP7,” said professor Chris Hankin, pro-rector for research at Imperial College in London, in a telephone interview.

"The 7th research framework programme plays an important role in ensuring the future competitiveness and innovation of European industry. Nokia has actively participated in previous framework programmes and supports excellence in areas that promote industrial competitiveness," the Finnish mobile phone company said in a prepared statement

Polish fears

But some politicians take a more nuanced stance. Jerzy Buzek, former prime minister of Poland, now a member of the European Parliament, fears that by focusing solely on excellence in the next budget, the Union might not be getting the best value for money.

The original plan was to devote over €70 billion to FP7, but agonizing negotiations over the Union’s entire budget for the next seven years among member states resulted in the R&D budget being trimmed.

The original aim, in line with the Union’s so-called "Lisbon" goals, was to double R&D spending in FP7, but after the budget was trimmed the increase will be more like 70 to 75 per cent.

“There is not enough money to allow Europe to catch up with places like Japan and the United States,” Buzek said in a telephone interview, adding: “If you have some excellent projects but not enough money you should also consider costs when allocating the resources.”

“Of course I believe in focusing on excellence,” Buzek said. Converting research, which Europe is good at, into real innovations, is vital to maintaining Europe’s competitiveness in the global economy, he added.

With limited resources, the best way to do this is to involve many more universities than has been the case until now, Buzek said.

Elites to continue

When FP6 was finalised in 2002 there were only 15 countries in the Union. Buzek is one of several MEPs who fears that with a single-minded focus on excellence, the elite universities and research institutes, including Imperial College, will continue to dominate the new R&D programme, even though less well known institutions could offer the same research quality at a lower price.

Imperial College was involved in 140 different projects under FP6, according to Hankin. If his college gets the best results then it should continue to benefit from the Union’s R&D programmes, he said.

Buzek also argues that there is a risk that the elitist approach to spending R&D money could encourage talented scientists from less well known institutions, particularly in the 10 new member states of the Union, to leave Europe in search of recognition elsewhere.

Spreading the money more thinly across a wider selection of universities and institutes “will help maintain contact with people from less well known parts of the EU – they could be our value added,” he said. “Spreading the money in this way could be a brain drain-stemming measure,” he added.

Potocnik and Hankin agree there is a need to tie in scientists from around Europe to create a genuine Europe-wide research area, but they believe the FP7 budget is not the place to do it.

How the EIT could help

Creating a European Institute of Technology would be the best way to achieve this end, Hankin said. European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso proposed the EIT idea earlier this year.

“With an EIT you would have the opportunity to provide mobility funds that would help bring researchers from weaker universities and institutes in the Union into contact with the best. They would then take the expertise and knowledge they acquire back with them, spreading the benefits of top class research and forging a real European research area,” Hankin said.

“The Commission has separate funds designed to bolster poorer regions in the Union called structural funds. The trick is to get structural funds and R&D money working in tandem,” said Antonia Mochan, Potocnik’s spokeswoman.

Mochan also poured cold water on Buzek’s “value for money” argument. “Sometimes cheapest in not always best,” she said.