Free European researchers to address the (unknown) questions of tomorrow

Finland sits in a relatively remote corner of the globe. At this time of year, the short days and snow-filled streets can make you feel particularly isolated.

The traditional antidote is to take refuge in the sauna, where we meet, talk, and share ideas until summer comes. Amid hot clouds of evaporated water, we cure ills, solve problems and agree complex business deals.

In this global era, however, sauna conversations have their limitations. What we need, even in the depths of winter, is to be connected to rest of the world.

The best answer is always to look outwards. Of necessity, small countries like Finland tend to be more open, because we know we need the rest of the world more than it needs us. However, successful small countries also know that they have a valuable contribution to make to the rest of the world. Part of the remit of the Technology Academy Finland, is to keep Finnish science globally connected and to foster connections between science and business.

Science today is a global enterprise. Talented researchers want to work with the best in their field, no matter where they are located. Collaboration is also a way of sharing the burden, particularly when the scale or scope of research is too large even for the biggest of nations. The International Space Station and the Large Hadron Collider are excellent examples. 

In Europe, a major achievement of previous Framework R&D Programmes was how they fostered international collaboration and gave mobility grants for young European researchers, forming the bedrock of a common European science infrastructure.

Bureaucratic grind

But a major problem with EU Framework Programmes was the lack of a different sort of collaboration - and one that is vital for our future competitiveness - the cross-fertilisation between academia and industry that turns money into ideas and vice-versa.

For the corporate world, the bureaucratic grind of previous Framework Programmes was just too onerous. Time-consuming form filling, time-wasting delays – including over a year to release the funds once a project was agreed – and stifling oversight (such as timesheets for some researchers) scared off all but the largest and/or most patient companies.

Industry participation in Framework Programmes declined continuously for fifteen years - from 39 per cent to 25 per cent in 2011, according to the European Commission’s own figures.

Now, with the new €70 billion Horizon 2020, the Commission is seeking to woo back industry. There is the promise of a simplified application process and a reimbursement mechanism with a friendlier face, even a dedicated help desk. Grants will be delivered in eight months – an improvement, although still 100 days longer than it takes to turn round similar grants in the US. In addition, 20 percent of funding will be dedicated to small- and medium-sized companies, the motor of our economies, and subject-area pigeonholes have been broken up. 

Litmus test

This week leading figures in the Commission have been on a transatlantic mission, extolling the Horizon 2020 programme at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual conference in Chicago. Meanwhile, a country-by-country promotional tour is steaming its way across Europe. It seems likely that these changes will be well received. But the litmus test will be how the new rules are delivered.   

There has also been an attempt in Horizon 2020 to address the pace of change in technology.  Innovation is driving the digital economy at breakneck speeds, but EU research projects are so long and inflexible that even if researchers were ahead of the game at the outset, they would be behind by the time the project ended.

To address this, the EU has invented a continuously open call for what it terms "leadership enabling and industrial technologies," with a time to grant of six months. This is a major improvement, but still it does not address a fault-line of previous programmes: inflexibility in terms of outcomes.

Real research means uncovering things that you didn’t know before you started. On the basis of newly-acquired knowledge, a wise researcher might decide to shift the end goals of the project, just as a sailor might change navigation plans to avoid a storm. EU research projects still do not allow for this. They are also not allowed to adapt to changes in the industrial landscape.

Long ago, the EU jettisoned its one-time ambition to be “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world” by 2010.  If we still want to be in the game by 2020, we must learn to trust our researchers a little more, and let them adapt to the fast-changing world around them.

Do not let Horizon 2020 be a vehicle for researching the questions of yesteryear.

References: