CAPÍTULO II MÍNIMO VITAL
CONFRONTACIÓN DE PREMISAS MAYOR CON LA LEY SECUNDARIA
On balance, it seems that UK stakeholders value two things above all else from amongst the FP’s portfolio of instruments: they like the scale and international scope of the work that can be supported through a Framework scheme; and they like the growing number of bottom-up instruments that permit stakeholders – whether policy makers, research councils or businesses – to get involved in programme- or project-scale activities that fit their priorities exactly. The addition of the ERC was also very widely endorsed, although not by businesses or RTOs who see this as a major financial and intellectual distraction from Europe’s competitiveness issues.
Contributors had very different levels of knowledge regarding the panoply of FP instruments, so for example, the ERC uses just two instruments, neither of which is deployed anywhere else in the FP. Similarly, the research infrastructure area has a single instrument, the I3s, which is not used anywhere else. The other point that emerged was that for every two or three plaudits given to an instrument, we found a detractor able to make a strong case regarding its limitations.
The integrated projects were well regarded by most, permitting a scale of collaborative-research activity not easily replicated through national schemes, and with the added advantage of accessing unique competences and more extensive value chains. The scale and scope permitted was believed to be really important to people’s ambitions to move forward a research agenda. People noted certain risks inasmuch as these very large projects and consortia are hugely difficult to manage and can sometimes dissemble.
Several contributors expressed concern over the presumption that collaborative research should be pursued almost exclusively through very large projects with budgets of EUR 10 million rather than 1 million. In some areas, and for some research questions, critical mass is achievable with 5 people not 50. Such a monolithic view was thought to be rather wasteful, in some areas and with regard to certain questions at least: better to pose the challenge and allow the community to determine the very best methodology and price that work accordingly.
The Networks of Excellence generated few comments, as they have largely run their course, however a minority of contributors did offer the view that this kind of partnership-building and knowledge- sharing structure should have been hugely valuable for progressing the ERA and for helping to address the FP ‘Achilles heel,’ demonstration and exploitation. The idea that such networks would become self- sustaining was thought to be naïve, and that the very much more restricted support under FP7 could only lead to the closure of the remaining few networks: there was a sense that the Commission had consciously or otherwise ‘thrown out the baby with the bath water.’ A great deal of goodwill was thought to have been lost.
The ERC Starting Grant has proved to be particularly attractive, and providing a very substantial additional ‘fellowship’ fund for early-career researchers as compared with the national schemes on offer through various research councils. While there are very many national schemes, most are small
and competition is fierce. The ERC is a welcome boost in terms of the volume of funding available, and should ensure the UK research base is able to retain a larger proportion of the very best people in research careers. Attrition levels amongst young researchers are perhaps too high, and while this does focus the mind (on excellence) it might also be said to be somewhat wasteful of training and talent. There is an element of overlap with the Marie Curie scheme, however not to the extent that this is producing perverse incentives for young researchers in the UK. The ERC Advanced Investigators Grant has proved much less attractive, as there is substantial response-mode funding available through the UK grant-awarding research councils where success rates are better too.
Marie Curie Actions are well regarded and are seen as a valuable source of additional capacity as busy UK labs struggle with the limited numbers of fellowships available nationally. MCAs really only confront two challenges, the first being from industry, and the eligibility rules, which essentially exclude them, and the second being from university HR people who perceive an inflationary pressure on researcher wages as MCA allowances are very much more generous than a typical stipend.
The I3s have worked well, providing large numbers of UK academics with access to a long list of novel and interesting facilities that is not readily available nationally. The STFC was also complimentary about the role of the I3s in helping Europe’s scientific communities to have more extensive dialogue around common needs, outside FP.
Government departments tended to favour the ERANETs above all else, and in particular the ERANET plus scheme, as this approach permits policy teams or industry-sponsorship groups to define research agendas and funding levels. This was not a universal view however, and at least two of the research councils expressed concerns over the protracted process through which partners exchange information and negotiate a common agenda, which risks national agencies being obliged to provide substantial funds to support research they believe to be irrelevant and or below their own quality threshold. Bilateral or trilateral partnerships tend to suffer much less from these kinds of quality issues.
The JTIs were highly regarded by BIS industry teams and the Technology Strategy Board, for similar reasons to ERANETS. Research agendas can be defined bottom up and funding can be provided more quickly and more flexibly than one can achieve through the mainstream FP areas. Artemis and Eurostars were singled out as particular success stories here.