EU funding inquiry opens

LONDON — Lack of clarity about whether the European Union's research funding is intended primarily to support world class research, or whether its main aim is to promote social and cultural integration, emerged as one of the chief concerns occupying academic scientists at a hearing on Wednesday (February 5) of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology. The hearing was the opening of an inquiry into whether UK science is getting value for the €2.5 billion it will put into the EU science budget — Framework 6 — over the three to seven year lifetime of its different projects. On average, the UK money amounts to about 5% annually of the total UK science budget. In its evidence, the lobby group Save British Science (SBS) said the lack of clarity about the political purpose of the Framework programmes, "leads to unhealthy confusion about the criteria for the selection of projects, and makes it difficult to believe that member states are obtaining value for money for their contributions." Michael Trevan, a member of SBS's executive committee, also expressed doubt about the concept of the European Research Area, a proposal by Philippe Busquin, the EU research commissioner, intended to ensure that European science can compete with the best from the US and Japan. Some 17% of Framework 6 is expected to be spent on promoting the idea.Other preoccupying issues included the impact of EU enlargement on the pattern of allocation of science funding, and the balance between basic and applied research — with a number of witnesses concerned that money was skewed too far toward the latter. Setting priorities in future, when there are 27 rather than 15 member states, may be more long-winded and woolly than now, said Ian Marshall, from University College London. Overall the UK wins grants roughly equivalent to the amount it pays into the EU. But this is not the full picture, said Trevan, who was also director of research and consultancy at the University of Westminster, which receives 50% of its research money from the EU. He argued that to win the €2.5 billion back from the Framework 6 programme will cost UK universities €1 billion. This is because the EU pays a comparatively low percentage for indirect costs, so the universities have to find that money elsewhere.All the witnesses cited the low level of indirect costs as a problem when applying for EU grants, and called for matching funds from the UK government. "I dread hearing we've been successful with a bid for EU funding," said John Turner, director of UniSdirect at the University of Surrey. Nevertheless, Surrey continues to make successful applications for EU funding.One issue unique to the UK concerns the impact that undertaking EU-funded research has on an institution's performance in the Research Assessment Exercise, which is the basis on which the UK funding councils allocate block grants to universities. So much of the EU-funded research is applied, said Trevan, and the outcome might be valuable advice to government but it does not necessarily translate into papers published in journals with high impact factors. Yet it is the latter that currently counts when assessing research quality.Despite these difficulties, Gerry Gilmore, from the University of Cambridge, was enthusiastic about the Framework programmes, arguing that the long-term benefits of knowledge transfer that spring from international collaborations among leading universities and those from regions without a strong research tradition far outweigh the disadvantages. "The range of views expressed today are fascinating," said Gilmore.

EU funding inquiry opens

17 billion research programme receives mixed reception from UK academics.

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of