EU plans to boost research

Abstract

The European Commission's proposals for research-funding areas over the next 7 years show little change from previous programmes. But, says Pelle Neroth, the EU's desire to catch up with the USA and Japan means European scientists may see more money coming their way.Pressure from EU leaders, who are concerned that Europe is falling behind the USA in research and development, may help boost the budget for the new EU science funding programme, FP7, to €10 billion—double that of its predecessor, FP6. Yet ministers meeting in Brussels last week confirmed that the much criticised “integrated projects”, a source of intense frustration for scientists because of the administrative costs they involve, will remain a key part of Europe's approach to funding science.One innovation for the new framework programme, which will run for 7 years from 2007, will be spending more money on incentives to stop researchers leaving Europe. Janez Potocnik, the European science commissioner, says the scheme—labelled the Marie Curie programme—will devote money to employing and training researchers, and facilitating cross-border moves.But the biggest change of the new programme will be the probable creation of a European Research Council (ERC), an executive agency based in Brussels that will centralise and coordinate the priorities of European science.European cancer researchers recently assembled in London recently to criticise the failure of Europe to fund more clinical cancer research, but the problem, the Commission says, really lies with the member states. A large clinical trial could easily cost half the €90 million (US$117 million) the Commission has allocated each year to cancer research. Whether this is doubled under the haggling over FP7's increased resources will not make much difference. Around 90% of science funding—and that includes clinical research—will continue to come from either direct national non-commercial funding, or industry. “The Commission really has quite little power”, admitted a delegate at the meeting, even as she was critical of its inability to achieve much in European science.One solution is to assign the Commission vastly more money. But unless the ERC manages to prioritise science in the way that national research councils do, this money will be accused of being dribbled away bureaucratically. The Marimon report on European science, compiled by a panel of European academics and published last June, assembled a list of criticisms from applicants for funding under the earlier FP6 framework programme. The investigators complained that grants were only issued to cross-border partnerships, involving representatives from industry and academia and from several different countries, which, they say, meant research progressed at the speed of the most mediocre partner. (Usually from somewhere like Poland or Malta, one commentator said sourly.)The huge administration burden on coordinators of partnerships was also criticised, along with complex issues over ownership of intellectual property rights, and the way money is gobbled up by external auditors in preparation for making a proposal for funding—especially since the proposal is 85% likely to fail.Ian Phillips of the IT company ARM, a scientist and veteran of FP proposals, says complaints about costs for auditors are ironic because the external audit procedure was put into place to curb the huge abuses in cost estimates that had plagued earlier framework programmes, allowing proposal applicants to “get away with murder”.The Commission's project evaluators have been criticised for their incompetence: “The science initiatives are stifled by bureaucracy, and this is compounded by the low level administrators who are untrained even in the language of science, never mind the ethos”, says professor Gordon McVie, a senior research strategy consultant for the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, and a veteran of European science issues. Part of the problem may, however, be one of understaffing rather than competence: one evaluator said the typical work session involved reading 10 or 12 proposals, each up to 60 or 70 pages long, in the course of 2 hours.There has been criticism, too, of the feedback for failed projects. “Why”, asked one respondent to the Marimon report, “spend three months putting together a proposal when all you get is a one page of feedback with your rejection?”The Commission replies that national and US funding calls operate in a similar way and that companies have a culture of blaming Europe when they wouldn't do the same when treated by the equivalent national institution. “And Europeans have a culture of complaining about everything”, it says. But the new programme will, the Commission promises, require fewer documents for applications and introduce a two-step selection process to ease burdens on unsuccessful applicants.The central problem for European science is that across the board it does well in basic research, but poorly at applied research: European researchers produce as many papers as US scientists do, but far fewer patents. And US researchers have far better links to industry.But increasing patent volumes is not the only answer, at least in the life sciences. According to Cathy Radcliffe, of National Translational Cancer Research Network (NTRAC), a UK government network that coordinates clinical trials, clinical trials are the bottleneck. “There is already enough basic research at out there”, she says, and in the life sciences “this has to be turned into applied science through clinical trials”. Industry understands this, but, with its short term interests, does not fund enough, or necessarily the right, clinical trials.The Commission has arguably been tardy in understanding this problem: the funding instruments under FP7 seem to concentrate once again on building industry links. And although the ERC will be a centralised non commercial agency, which science commissioner Potocnik claims will “support research in all scientific fields, from industry-driven to social and human sciences, and will allow the EU to compete with the US, Japan, and other competitors”, its remit will be on basic, and not applied, research.The blame for the disparity between basic science and clinical funding lies mostly with national governments: they have neither funded enough clinical trials nor ensured that they stay in Europe, argues Kathleen Vandendael, of the Federation of European Cancer Societies in Brussels. Though outsourcing clinical trials to China would be cheaper, undertaking clinical trials not only translates basic science into applied science but it also promotes good clinical practice, and therefore better patient care. US public bodies, such as the National Institutes of Health vastly outspend Europe on clinical trials, both in total sums and as a percentage of life-sciences spend.The full details of how and what European science will be funded over the next 7 year period will probably be decided in June. What was published on April 6 (see panel) was only the commission proposal, and the particular priorities and spending instruments could be stretched out of recognition by amendments from the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers as the proposal weaves its way through the Brussels political process. The science programme then has to win its share of the EU's total €1 trillion budget, which has to cover such expenses as regional aid, the common agricultural policy, and foreign and security issues, at a summit of European leaders in June.PanelEuropean Commission proposals for FP7 research themesThe Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) of European science-funding, lasting between 2007 and 2013, takes over from the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6; 2002–2006) and will focus on nine areas listed below, available funds are quoted in € millions.Tabled 1Health7 350Food, agriculture, and biotechnology2170Information and communication technologies11 197Energy2590Nanosciences and nanotechnologies, materials, and new production technologies4270Environment (including climate change)2240Transport (including aeronautics)5250Socio-economic sciences and the humanities700Security and Space3500European Research Council10 483“Marie Curie Actions”, to train, develop, and assist the pan-European ability of European researchers6 300Other research expenditures, including Euratom, spending on helping research for small enterprises, bringing science closer to the public (Science and society), and the joint research centre8300 Open table in a new tab Importantly, however, the portents seem promising. Last month, the annual competitiveness summit of European leaders lamented that Europe's progress towards becoming the world's most competitive and hi-tech economy by 2010 (the so-called Lisbon goals) was going off track, and broadly backed an increase in Europe's research budget. But where the research money, already the EU's third largest expense, will come from is anyone's guess. Thanks to a stitch up between France and Germany a few years ago, the sums involved in the bloated Common Agricultural Policy are fixed until 2013, and the richer countries, such as Sweden and the UK, are reluctant to increase the EU's total budget because the know they will be its main paymasters.The commission talks of a European Research Area presided over by a European Research Council that decides priorities—a project large enough in scale and ambition to compare to the single market or the Euro—through pooling of European science.Member states' current national approaches towards life sciences—underspending on clinical trials—suggests that, with nation states still controlling most science funding, lessons have to be learned at a national scale first. The European Commission's proposals for research-funding areas over the next 7 years show little change from previous programmes. But, says Pelle Neroth, the EU's desire to catch up with the USA and Japan means European scientists may see more money coming their way. Pressure from EU leaders, who are concerned that Europe is falling behind the USA in research and development, may help boost the budget for the new EU science funding programme, FP7, to €10 billion—double that of its predecessor, FP6. Yet ministers meeting in Brussels last week confirmed that the much criticised “integrated projects”, a source of intense frustration for scientists because of the administrative costs they involve, will remain a key part of Europe's approach to funding science. One innovation for the new framework programme, which will run for 7 years from 2007, will be spending more money on incentives to stop researchers leaving Europe. Janez Potocnik, the European science commissioner, says the scheme—labelled the Marie Curie programme—will devote money to employing and training researchers, and facilitating cross-border moves. But the biggest change of the new programme will be the probable creation of a European Research Council (ERC), an executive agency based in Brussels that will centralise and coordinate the priorities of European science. European cancer researchers recently assembled in London recently to criticise the failure of Europe to fund more clinical cancer research, but the problem, the Commission says, really lies with the member states. A large clinical trial could easily cost half the €90 million (US$117 million) the Commission has allocated each year to cancer research. Whether this is doubled under the haggling over FP7's increased resources will not make much difference. Around 90% of science funding—and that includes clinical research—will continue to come from either direct national non-commercial funding, or industry. “The Commission really has quite little power”, admitted a delegate at the meeting, even as she was critical of its inability to achieve much in European science. One solution is to assign the Commission vastly more money. But unless the ERC manages to prioritise science in the way that national research councils do, this money will be accused of being dribbled away bureaucratically. The Marimon report on European science, compiled by a panel of European academics and published last June, assembled a list of criticisms from applicants for funding under the earlier FP6 framework programme. The investigators complained that grants were only issued to cross-border partnerships, involving representatives from industry and academia and from several different countries, which, they say, meant research progressed at the speed of the most mediocre partner. (Usually from somewhere like Poland or Malta, one commentator said sourly.) The huge administration burden on coordinators of partnerships was also criticised, along with complex issues over ownership of intellectual property rights, and the way money is gobbled up by external auditors in preparation for making a proposal for funding—especially since the proposal is 85% likely to fail. Ian Phillips of the IT company ARM, a scientist and veteran of FP proposals, says complaints about costs for auditors are ironic because the external audit procedure was put into place to curb the huge abuses in cost estimates that had plagued earlier framework programmes, allowing proposal applicants to “get away with murder”. The Commission's project evaluators have been criticised for their incompetence: “The science initiatives are stifled by bureaucracy, and this is compounded by the low level administrators who are untrained even in the language of science, never mind the ethos”, says professor Gordon McVie, a senior research strategy consultant for the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, and a veteran of European science issues. Part of the problem may, however, be one of understaffing rather than competence: one evaluator said the typical work session involved reading 10 or 12 proposals, each up to 60 or 70 pages long, in the course of 2 hours. There has been criticism, too, of the feedback for failed projects. “Why”, asked one respondent to the Marimon report, “spend three months putting together a proposal when all you get is a one page of feedback with your rejection?” The Commission replies that national and US funding calls operate in a similar way and that companies have a culture of blaming Europe when they wouldn't do the same when treated by the equivalent national institution. “And Europeans have a culture of complaining about everything”, it says. But the new programme will, the Commission promises, require fewer documents for applications and introduce a two-step selection process to ease burdens on unsuccessful applicants. The central problem for European science is that across the board it does well in basic research, but poorly at applied research: European researchers produce as many papers as US scientists do, but far fewer patents. And US researchers have far better links to industry. But increasing patent volumes is not the only answer, at least in the life sciences. According to Cathy Radcliffe, of National Translational Cancer Research Network (NTRAC), a UK government network that coordinates clinical trials, clinical trials are the bottleneck. “There is already enough basic research at out there”, she says, and in the life sciences “this has to be turned into applied science through clinical trials”. Industry understands this, but, with its short term interests, does not fund enough, or necessarily the right, clinical trials. The Commission has arguably been tardy in understanding this problem: the funding instruments under FP7 seem to concentrate once again on building industry links. And although the ERC will be a centralised non commercial agency, which science commissioner Potocnik claims will “support research in all scientific fields, from industry-driven to social and human sciences, and will allow the EU to compete with the US, Japan, and other competitors”, its remit will be on basic, and not applied, research. The blame for the disparity between basic science and clinical funding lies mostly with national governments: they have neither funded enough clinical trials nor ensured that they stay in Europe, argues Kathleen Vandendael, of the Federation of European Cancer Societies in Brussels. Though outsourcing clinical trials to China would be cheaper, undertaking clinical trials not only translates basic science into applied science but it also promotes good clinical practice, and therefore better patient care. US public bodies, such as the National Institutes of Health vastly outspend Europe on clinical trials, both in total sums and as a percentage of life-sciences spend. The full details of how and what European science will be funded over the next 7 year period will probably be decided in June. What was published on April 6 (see panel) was only the commission proposal, and the particular priorities and spending instruments could be stretched out of recognition by amendments from the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers as the proposal weaves its way through the Brussels political process. The science programme then has to win its share of the EU's total €1 trillion budget, which has to cover such expenses as regional aid, the common agricultural policy, and foreign and security issues, at a summit of European leaders in June. The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) of European science-funding, lasting between 2007 and 2013, takes over from the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6; 2002–2006) and will focus on nine areas listed below, available funds are quoted in € millions.Tabled 1Health7 350Food, agriculture, and biotechnology2170Information and communication technologies11 197Energy2590Nanosciences and nanotechnologies, materials, and new production technologies4270Environment (including climate change)2240Transport (including aeronautics)5250Socio-economic sciences and the humanities700Security and Space3500European Research Council10 483“Marie Curie Actions”, to train, develop, and assist the pan-European ability of European researchers6 300Other research expenditures, including Euratom, spending on helping research for small enterprises, bringing science closer to the public (Science and society), and the joint research centre8300 Open table in a new tab The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) of European science-funding, lasting between 2007 and 2013, takes over from the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6; 2002–2006) and will focus on nine areas listed below, available funds are quoted in € millions. Importantly, however, the portents seem promising. Last month, the annual competitiveness summit of European leaders lamented that Europe's progress towards becoming the world's most competitive and hi-tech economy by 2010 (the so-called Lisbon goals) was going off track, and broadly backed an increase in Europe's research budget. But where the research money, already the EU's third largest expense, will come from is anyone's guess. Thanks to a stitch up between France and Germany a few years ago, the sums involved in the bloated Common Agricultural Policy are fixed until 2013, and the richer countries, such as Sweden and the UK, are reluctant to increase the EU's total budget because the know they will be its main paymasters. The commission talks of a European Research Area presided over by a European Research Council that decides priorities—a project large enough in scale and ambition to compare to the single market or the Euro—through pooling of European science. Member states' current national approaches towards life sciences—underspending on clinical trials—suggests that, with nation states still controlling most science funding, lessons have to be learned at a national scale first.