EU scientists debate FP7

Europe's research community has generally welcomed the chance to participate in a wide-ranging debate on Europe's future science policy, which the European Commission launched earlier this month.Responding to criticism that it has ignored scientists views in the past, the commission has said that it wants to hear, and will act on, the views of scientists before it presents its proposals for the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) in autumn.Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker, the president of the German Research Foundation and the president of the European Heads of Research Councils, said that Germany's research organizations had already joined together to give their views on how Europe's science policy can be improved.Winnacker had strong praise for the commission for opening up the debate on the future science policy in Europe by creating a consultation phase. "There is no doubt that the EU framework programs have contributed to improving the quality of research in Europe," Winnacker told The Scientist. "The FP6 is good, but there is room for improvement." In particular, excessive bureaucracy needs to be addressed, he said, as do the high costs in terms of time and money associated with applying for funding under FP6. "We suggested that no additional [funding] instruments should be added, but that the existing ones should be improved," Winnacker said. "The networks of excellence are big enterprises that require a great deal of management, and these have not been appreciated by scientists as much as the smaller, short-term programs that are less complex to manage and that facilitate work with smaller partners."Winnacker and the heads of the European research councils have also put forward a strong scientific case for creating a new agency to fund basic science. "The European Commission is very open to our proposal for creating such an agency," he said. "We think such an agency should be independent and choose projects on the basis of scientific excellence only." "I would like to see some new money for research. But I think that money should also come out of the existing budget. At the moment, about 50% goes into agriculture and only 4% on research," Winnacker added, underscoring his support for the commission's call for the budget for FP7—which will run between 2006 and 2010—to be doubled.However, not all scientists are convinced that the commission really will listen to the views of scientists. Rüdiger Hesse, who runs the Max Planck Society's office in Brussels, said that he was skeptical about the value of the consultation exercise. "The European Commission has always promised improvements in the past, but it has not delivered them," he told The Scientist. "The FP6 is the world's largest research program, but it is not the most successful. The management is too bureaucratic. The applications for funding are extremely complicated to fill out, and the chances of getting funding are low. It is chaos," Hesse said. "All scientists want to do is fill out a document and get their money." Nevertheless, Hesse said that the FP7 presented a "historical chance" for Europe to go for scientific excellence. "There is a basic consensus now that what we need in Europe is independent science funding without any political influence and based on open competition, and this is good," he said.The commission identified six major ingredients for Europe's future scientific success in a document that it published to kick-start the debate. These include launching European technology initiatives, stimulating competition among scientists engaged in basic research, and making Europe a more attractive location to top researchers.The commission has also launched an online questionnaire so that every researcher can give their views on how the next framework program could be improved.

EU scientists debate FP7

Some jump at the chance to shape funding arrangements, others remain highly skeptical

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of