Footing the bill.

Abstract

When the discussion turns to the creation of a European Research Council (ERC), a series of questions spring to mind. Answering some of them is now almost trivial—for example, “Why is an ERC needed and timely?”—whereas the answers to others, being more political, are certainly more difficult to envisage for most practising scientists. This is notably the case for the questions: “Who will be the ERC's founders?” and moreover, “Who will pay?” Indeed, the financial aspect is probably the most sensitive and challenging issue associated with the creation of an ERC because it may determine the political support required, as well as the timetable for its establishment and the ambitions of its programmes. And those who are ready to pay are scarce. Several funding possibilities can be envisaged, with varying probabilities of becoming reality. Charities, for example, may certainly become one of the funding sources, although probably neither a reliable one in the long‐term, because of unpredictability, nor a main one, as funds may need to be targeted to specific programmes in line with the missions of the charity. Industry is also considered by some—wishful thinking—to be a potential source. European Commissioner Philippe Busquin commented at the Danish Presidency Conference in October last year, “A certain amount of fresh funding is […] essential, and it could and should be provided to a significant extent by businesses, for example, through foundations.” But during the meeting organized in Paris by the European Life Sciences Forum (ELSF) in February 2003 (Breithaupt, 2003; van Dyck & Peerenboom, 2003), both Hans van den Berg, from Akzo Nobel, Arnhem, The Netherlands, and the Animal Cell Technology Industry Platform, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and Horst Domdey, from the company BioM, which promotes the BioTech Region in Munich, Germany, clearly stated that, although it supports the …