2 Weeks to Go: Get Reading!

There's just over a couple of weeks until the majority of the 2011-12 FP7 Cooperation funding calls will be announced. If you're thinking of getting involved, you have to get your skates on. Yes, I know it seems crazy to do so before the calls are even announced, but by now you should have a good idea of who you would like to work with (your consortium), and have read the various iterations of the draft work programmes that have been made available by UKRO and others. If you've not do so, I've rounded up links to the latest versions I can find:

• Environment - Orientation Paper (pdf)
• KBBE - Orientation Paper (pdf)
• Health - Orientation Paper (pdf)
• ICT - Work Programme (pdf)
• NMP - Orientation Paper (pdf)
• Security - Draft Work Programme (pdf) & Overview (pdf)
• Socioeconomic Sciences & Humanities - Draft of Challenges & Topics (pdf)

If I haven't listed your area, get in touch and I'll dig out the relevant work programme. Otherwise if you want more advice on what you should be doing in the run up to the calls, or just want to talk about the project you have in mind, get in touch.

She Would Say That, Wouldn't She?

Over in Brussels, in an item that will shock no-one, the EC's research commissioner, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, is proposing that the research budget be increased for Horizon 2020 (nee FP8). She suggested that it be increased from the €50bn for the current Framework Programme to over €80bn, a rise of some 46%.

To misquote Mandy Rice Davies, well, she would say that, wouldn't she? It might have been more newsworthy if she'd thrown up her hands and said, 'guys, I've been thinking. Perhaps we should slash the research budget, and scrap the post of research commissioner. I mean, who needs it?'

More deliciously, she claims that the proposed increase would be 'better value' for the taxpayer. Which is reassuring: everyone's a winner. The budget will now be considered by the European Parliament and Council, which, as you know, are famous for quick, decisive responses.

I sound cynical, but it would be great if the 46% increase is approved. In a time of recession ploughing money into research and development is one of the safest ways out of it. However, as a news item, 'research commissioner suggests more money for research' ranks alongside 'dog bites man' or 'small earthquake: no-one hurt' as an exciting headline.

ERC Success Rates

Interesting stats from UKRO on the ERC Starting (StG) and Advance (AdG) Grants. There's now been three complete calls for each scheme, and UKRO's statistics show how the success rate for both StG and AdG has risen:

• Starting Grants: 3.3% (2007-8) to 14.9 (2009-10)
• Advanced Grants: 12.7% (2007-08) to 13.2% (2009-10)

Interestingly, the success rates for Grants hosted at UK HEIs is higher than the European average for StG (17.3%), but only marginally so for AdG (13.6%).

Now compare these figures with those published by the ESRC in their Demand Management Consultation Paper on the recent success rates for all the UK Research Councils:

• AHRC: 16%
• ESRC: 17% (small and standard grants combined)
• MRC: 19%
• BBSRC: 22%
• NERC: 24%
• EPSRC: 30% (following the introduction of its blacklisting procedure)
• STFC: 53%

So the ERC success rates aren't a million miles away from the bottom three Research Councils - and the UK Starting Grants are actually the same or better than the AHRC and ESRC. No wonder the ESRC is making moves to introduce demand management measures, and the AHRC is following fast in its footsteps.

Feedback from FP8 Conference

The EC held a conference in Brussels on 10 June to discuss 'the Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation'. Yes, I know it's a bit of a mouthful, but don't yawn and click on to a more interesting page. This is important, as it sees the EC taking the first faltering steps towards formulating the replacement for the Framework Programme (FP7).

UKRO have provided an excellent summary of the conference. Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, fed back the findings of the recent consultation on FP8. No great surprises here: people were generally supportive of the proposals to coordinate and amalgamate a number of European funding streams, that there was a need for 'radical simplification' (hallelujah!), keep what works, jettison what doesn't, and cover all stages of the research process, from blue skies, to directed, to follow on and exploitation.

Her talk was followed by those of a number of different stake holders, including representatives from the ERC, CERN, and EuroHORCs, as well as the erstwhile Commissioner for Research, Janez Potočnik. There was some talk about the need for an increased budget, but I do worry that research funding will be a casualty to the tough economic times we're living through, and the bail out of Greece and Ireland will leave little room - or appetite - for bigger central budgets. But let's hope.

And finally...the conference was an opportunity to hear the shortlist for the new framework's name. They - foolishly - ignored my suggestion of FP8, and went instead for either:

• Discover 2020
• Horizon 2020
• Imagine 2020

Which all make me feel a bit queasy, if I'm frank. Sort of remind me of people standing around a field holding bottles of Coke and watching the sunrise, singing. Or, worse still, an infantilisation of research, like they're aimed at getting five year olds interested in science. Can you really see yourself suggesting to an academic that they consider an application to 'Imagine 2020'? With a straight face? No, me neither. Anyway, you can vote for your favourite before 17 June.

Shame there's no option for 'none of the above'...

UK's 'Dr Doolittle' Stance on FP8

BIS has published the UK's official response to the EC's consultation on the future of the Framework Programme. The 'Common Strategic Framework', which will take over from FP7, is intended to bring together a number of European funding streams, including the Framework Programme, the Cohesion Policy and the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme.

Generally, BIS was happy with the proposals, and it thought that the time was right to consider the way forward. However, it did suggest that the EC should consider a 'pushmi-pullyu' set up for future funding:

'The UK proposes that the bulk of future funding is based on two broad pillars addressing: a key technology/knowledge "push" and a challenge "pull".'

A push and a pull. Hmm. It took me a while to get my head around this. When does a push become a pull? Surely when it comes to research funding any kind of impetus is really just, well, a moving force, whether it be pushing or pulling? Why make the distinction? Isn't this all just semantics?

Well. From what I understand, the 'challenge pull' is to tug recalcitrant mules on to the green fields of the 'grand challenges'. Here they should ruminate on the lush topics of climate change, energy, water, and food security, protection of natural resources and the ageing population. The 'technology push' is when you open the field gate, crack the whip and let the young colts gambol in the wide open rolling plains.

So we're all clear then? That's all very well, but what happens when, instead of mules and colts you have a pushmi-pullyu? What if the colts are recalcitrant and the mules gambol? Oh the future of Euro-funding. It's a positive farmyard of poetential misunderstanding. If we could only talk to the animals...

Find a Name for FP8

Don't you just love it? Something to cheer you up on a Monday morning. The EC has launched a competition to name the new framework programme. No, no, none of that 'FP8' talk at the back!
Yes, it's all a bit Multi-coloured Swap Shop, but none the worse for it. So think of a name, ideally something that sums up your experience of European funding, with an acronym that isn't a word for a bodily function in any of the EC's 23 official languages.

Hmm...it's harder than I thought...

You can submit your entries here by 10 May 2011. The winning name will be announced by Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn at the Common Strategic Framework conference in Brussels on 10 June.

Protecting Social Sciences & Humanities within Europe

The University Association for Contemporary European Studies has raised concerns about the Socioeconomic Sciences and Humanities stream (SSH) within the EC's Framework Programme. In particular, it highlighted:

1. The downgrading of socio-economic and humanities research in DG Research from a department to one single office (taking effect January 1, 2011);
2. The plan to abolish broader, long-term integrated projects in social sciences and humanities in the 8th Framework Programme. Instead, a focus on "grand challenges" with topics that are more applied than basic research and are supposed to foster European competitiveness on global markets (social science as an ‘auxiliary’ discipline to be mainstreamed into the other sciences);
3. The downsizing of funding for socio-economic and humanities research projects in the 8th Framework Programme.

So how much truth is there in these concerns, and should we be worried? I turned to UKRO for some answers. They said that there had been a significant re-structuring of the European Commission's Directorate General (DG) for Research. As part of this, the Directorate which previously managed SSH, Directorate L: Science, Economy and Society, has been discontinued.

Is this a sign of the downgrading of SSH in the eyes of the EC? Well, the eurocrats wouldn't see it like this: SSH has been taken over by the new Directorate B: European Research Area, which have equal levels of staffing to the units moved from the old Directorate L. So a structural shift, but the same commitment.

As to the future, nothing concrete has been decided about FP8, in terms of structure, research themes or instruments. However, UKRO thought that it may be possible that it may take more of a 'Grand Challenge' approach. The place of SSH within this is less clear.

If you're concerned about this, make sure your voice is heard by responding to BIS' current Call for Evidence. Before you do, take a couple of minutes to read through UACES' arguments for the importance of keeping SSH, as follows:

Why do we need a European Social Science and Humanities Research programme?

• The European Union is far more than an economic integration area. It needs SSH research to look at questions of democracy, participation, European identity, multilingualism, social and cultural cohesion, peace and international cooperation.
• SSH investigate prejudices and give early warnings of dangers and problems in society. Politically sensitive issues are often discussed across the social/cultural border, highlighting the effects of policy on wider society.
  

Who needs SSH research?

• SSH researchers engage already in multiple collaborations with public authorities and policy makers, international organisations, think tanks, media, NGOs, churches, business and employee’s organisations, companies, museums, citizen fora etc.
• Researchers and these collaboration groups fulfil different tasks in society. Researchers are more independent and offer a differentiated analysis with a medium-term view beyond current situations.
• Politics is complicated and contested by various actors. Researchers cannot give simple answers, but highlight sound criteria according to which decisions should be taken and clarify consequences of policies. They enable policy makers to make decisions based on scientific evidence.
  

Why does research funding need to come from the European Union?

• The European Research Area aims to create a European-wide open space for knowledge. Without European funding, cooperation projects with four to ten European partners would not be carried out.
• Bilateral cooperation cannot replace European projects. Community and national funding are complementary, creating multiple synergies to transfer knowledge from one level to the other.
• SSH research has only begun in FP5, but seen a huge success in the scientific community.
• For small research fields, for instance, Chinese or Islamic studies, only very few researchers are established within one member state European research projects enable the necessary exchange.
  

Doesn't it cost too much?

• No. About half of the professors at many universities work in SSH, yet less than 2% of the cooperation budget goes to SSH. In FP7, a large number of excellent research proposals could not be supported due to funding limitations. Therefore, the budget for the specific cooperation programme for SSH needs to be doubled in FP8. Even then, SSH would remain the least expensive theme in cooperation.
  

Which European research funding instruments do we need?
Overall, a framework programme needs to offer four instruments for SSH:

• More SSH ERC grants are needed, by increasing the absolute budget for SSH.
• Small- and medium sized cooperation projects (three to ten partners) are the best way to support sustainable innovation. SSH projects are very cost effective, needing only one toive million Euros. These projects bridge between the risky and individual ERC-projects to build a broader consensus involving several institutions. A wide array of topics ensures competition of ideas and enables participation of outstanding young researchers. Topic selection should be made both bottom-up (by the research community) and top-down (by the European political institutions).
• Only a very small share of the SSH budget should be dedicated to large projects
  (beyond ten million Euros). Research themes should not be monopolised.
  
• The funding for Marie-Curie programmes needs to be increased substantially to contribute to excellence and mobility in research. It is extremely important that Marie-Curie programmes are not narrowed down to intersectoral mobility into industry, but also open to public institutions and civil society, briefly mobility into all sectors outlined above.
  

Why is it not sufficient to open SSH participation to tackle grand challenges such as climate change?

• While SSH have undoubtedly great contributions to make to various grand challenges, these contributions are complementary to intrinsic SSH research. Intrinsic SSH research is researchers’toolbox to contribute to specific existing questions and to adapt to newly arising challenges.
• That is not to say that SSH should not also contribute to wider programmes, although interdisciplinary projects need to ensure a larger share of funding for SSH.
  

What could be improved?

• To make the process of topic selection even more transparent, the Commission should organise an online consultation (or event) each year before drafting the work programme to give interested researchers the chance to highlight new topics. A roadmap with a few broad themes helps the research community for planning, when keeping a balance with newly upcoming themes.
• The European Commission should consider a slightly higher European contribution per project partner. It is extremely important that the entire actual research costs are reimbursed.
  

For more on the University Association for Contemporary European Studies go to their website here.

New ERC Scheme to Be Introduced

UKRO are reporting that the European Research Council (ERC) are considering introducing a new scheme in the 2012 Work Programme. The new scheme will only be open to current or previous ERC award holders, and will provide 'proof of concept' funding. This will allow PIs to undertake activities such as technical validation, market research, clarifying their Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) position and strategy or investigating commercial and business opportunities. The intention is to 'fill a gap' in the earliest stage of an innovation.

FP7: All the Funding Available for SSH

Net4Society, which sounds suspiciously like some fly-by-night insurance comparison website, is actually a network of National Contact Points (NCPs) for the Socioeconomic Sciences and Humanities (SSH) in the EC's Framework Programme (FP7).

Is that enough acronyms?

Anyway, they've put together an interesting document that lists all the FP7 funding available to SSH researchers. It's not just in the SSH stream itself, but also in areas such as Health, Environment and Transport. It's a tough document to chew on, with turgid eurospeak, acronyms and reference numbers throughout, but interesting to see how many places SSH, and particularly social sciences, feature. And it's a useful lesson to bear in mind: if you work in - say - health research don't just limit yourself to the Health stream, but look at other areas too.

Free FP7 Proposal Writing Event

Hot on the heels of their ERC event, UKRO have announced another workshop, this time on FP7 Proposal Writing. If you are planning to apply to the latest round of calls, I would encourage you to go along. The event will cover:

• Identifying opportunities in FP7
• Submission and evaluation
• Financial issues in proposal writing
• Hints and Tips for Success

It will take place between 10:30am-4pm on 23 September 2010 in the John Hanbury Lecture Theatre, School of Pharmacy, London. Attendance is free, and places are allocated on a first come, first served basis, so get your skates on and sign up here.

New FP7 Calls Announced

A new tranche of EC Framework Programme calls have been published, with deadlines in the autumn and winter. They cover all disciplines. More details of the calls are available on the EC’s Cordis website.

If you would like more information on any of these calls, or just want the Commission-speak deciphered, do get in touch.

EC: Joint Programming

At the same conference we heard about the EC's move towards Joint Programming. Joint Programming might be something some of you have heard about before: it's slowly rising to the top of the European funding agenda.

The thinking behind it is that research funding is spread thinly across Europe and, if we want to attract and retain the best researchers globally we need to act more collectively. They gave an example of public funding in EU27 compared with that in the USA: each EU country has some pot of money (with the Germans having the most, at around €170m). However, none come close to the US total of €100bn. But when you add all the EU funding together it comes to €90bn, which is much more respectable.

So you can see the logic: act together, and we're greater the sum of our parts. So how does it work in practice? Well of course, this being Europe, a committee has been formed: the High Level Group for Joint Programming (or GPC for short, from the French “Groupe de haut niveau pour la Programmation Conjointe"). The GPC maps out the current funding coverage for research at the moment and identifies areas of shortage. The first area, which became a Joint Programming Initiative (JPI), was on Alzheimer's - see the link below. After this, the Phase 1 JPIs were confirmed in December 2009 as:

• Agriculture, food security and climate change
• A healthy diet for a healthy life (formerly known as "Health, food and prevention of diet-related diseases")
• Cultural heritage & global change (formerly known as "Cultural heritage, climate change and security")

In May the GPC identified the Phase 2 themes as:

• Urban Europe
• Connecting Climate Knowledge for Europe
  
• More years, better lives
• Antimicrobial resistance
• Water challenges for a Chaning World
  
• Healthy & productive seas and oceans

How will these actually feed through into funding? Well, being Europe, these things take time and many, many committee meetings: the next steps are for further drafts of the proposal for JPIs in July, followed by a conference in Octover, and a Council meeting in November, so it will be next year at the earliest. But if you work in one of these areas it's worth noting that substantial, cross-European funding is on the horizon, so do some background reading on what they've got planned. Here are some links:

• EU Introduction to Joint Programming (pdf)
• A Citizen's Summary (pdf)
• Blog: Jargon Explained
• The Alzheimer's Pilot JPI
  

Talking of Marie Curie...

I attended an interesting session on the Marie Curie Fellowships last week at the UKRO Conference. It was interesting to get some insights into how the UK's done with these. Here are some stats, with the overall success rates for all countries first, and then the success rates for the projects that involve the UK second:

• Initial Training Networks (ITNs): Overall: 7%; UK: 16%
  
• Intra-European Fellowships (IEFs): Overall: 24%; UK: 30%
  
• European Reintegration Grants (ERGs): Overall: 65% (!); UK: 57%
  
• International Reintegration Grants (IRGs): 67% (!!); 78% (!!!)
  
• Industry-Academia Partnerships & Pathways (IAPPs): Overall: 16%; UK: 20%
  
• International Outgoing Fellowships (IOFs): Overall: 20%; UK: 29%
  
• International Research Staff Exchange Scheme (IRSES): Overall: 65%; UK: 66%
  
• International Incoming Fellowships (IIFs): Overall: 15%; UK: 18%
  
• Co-Funding of Regional, National & International Programmes (COFUND): Overall: 66%; UK: 100% (though that was one application out of one).

One other interesting stat (and apologies for sounding like I'm obsessed with numbers here): for the Intra-European Fellowships, which fund movement between member states within the EU, the UK hosts 37% of all fellows, and yet sends out only 4%. Is this down to the UK being a world class centre for academic research, or just down to our poor language skills? I'll let you decide...

Changes to Marie Curie Fellowships

Changes are afoot on the European Commission's flagship Marie Curie Fellowships, which encourage mobility of researchers within the European Research Area (ERA) - or, in their own words, to retain, repatriate, and recruit. Two of their schemes - the European Reintegration Grants (ERGs) and the International Reintegration Grants (IRGs) - are going to be amalgamated into a single scheme to be called the 'Career Integration Grants' (CIG). The aim will be on the 'repatriate' part of the MC's three Rs, and will encourage researchers to return to the ERA. The restriction that used to apply to ERGs - that only former MC Fellows could apply - will be lifted, and the scheme will look more like the IRGs. The first call is due 20 October 2010, with a deadline of 8 March 2011, so if you know someone who would fit the bill and could benefit from this funding, encourage them to look at the Cordis call page.

What's in Store for Socioeconomic Sciences and Humanities in Europe

UKRO, the UK Research Office in Brussels, has got hold of the Work Programme (WP) for Socioeconomic Sciences and Humanities for the forthcoming year. This is the document that sets out where the funding will go in this area, what the topics will be, and what parameters are for individual projects.

This year the EC is looking at specific ‘societal challenges’ to be addressed by large scale projects. There will be €84m available, with about a 70/30 split between larger and smaller projects.
The six Societal Challenges likely to be included in the 2011 calls are:

• Europe moving towards a new path of economic growth and social development;
• Economic, social and political conditions for satisfying the world food needs;
• Sustainable health behaviours in Europe;
• Tacking poverty in a development context - Specific International Co-operation Action (SICA);
• The evolving concept of borders; and
• Cultures of Corruption and resistance to corruption in the private and public sphere.
  

The final Work Programme is expected to be published at the end of July 2010. Calls for proposals should open later in the year, with deadlines at the beginning of the new calendar year. So this is a good opportunity to think about whether your work fits with the priorities and the challenges outlined in the WP, and whether you are well placed (in terms of having a good network of European partners) to take advantage of this funding.

UKRO are wary about widely distributing the WP, but if you would like to talk more about your work and your options, drop me a line.

New Director General for EC's DG Research

UKRO is reporting that Robert-Jan Smits has been appointed as teh new Director General for the EC's Directorate General for Research, which runs the Framework Programme. He moves from being Deputy Director-General at the Joint Research Centre. He will take over from José Manuel Silva Rodríguez on 1 July 2010.
Interesting that he was only at the JRC since Feb and appears to have leap frogged the previous incumbent of the Deputy Directorship of the JRC, Anneli Pauli, who moved on to become Deputy Director of DG Research. I'm sure it's all sweetness and light, but I imagine some nails are privately being spat in the Pauli household...

LERU : Position Paper on FP8

The League of European Research Universities (LERU) has issued a position paper on FP8. Amongst its recommendations are:

• Increased funding to meet the EU2020 goals, particularly for the ERC. In fact, the LERU liked the ERC generally, saying the peer review of other areas should take a leaf out of the ERC's book, and that auditing should be simplified and eligibility widened to encourage more participation;
• Similarly, it liked the Marie Curie actions, thought they should be supported, and considered recent moves to shift them from DG Research to DG Education as a wrong step;
  
• Responsive-mode funding should be increased, and that there should be more transparency in the selection of topics for managed programmes;
• Liked the Joint Programming Initiatives in theory, but thought they lacked transparency;
• Approved the moves by the EC to simplify the process and procedures around the Framework Programme.

The full text of the position paper can be accessed via the link, here.

New Head of ERC Announced

Not sure of the transparency of the process with this, but the Vice-President of the ERC and Vice-Chair of the Scientific Council has been 'elected unanimously' by the self same Scientific Council to be the next President of the ERC. Professor Nowotny (for it is she) is Professor Emeritus of Social Sciences at ETH Zurich, and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board of Vienna University. She replaces Professor Fotis Kafatos, who will remain as a member of the Scientific Council. And, faster than you can say 'nepotistic', Prof Kafatos has been proposed as Honorary President of the ERC.

Whoever said the EC was all about jobs for the boys? It's jobs for the girls too!

FP8 Begins to Take Shape

In the same way that Christmas seems to come round quicker and quicker each year, Framework Programmes seem to be speeding up. Barely have we got FP7 underway, it seems, than FP8 is peeping around the corner. Word on the (funding) street is that the EC is considering largescale changes this time around. Of course, it's still along way off, but there's talk of 'joint programming' - where national funders feed in to a joint funding pot in areas of strategic importance (there's a pilot one on the go for dementia) - and of 'grand challenges', such as energy, security, ageing, environment - i.e. the same kind of areas as RCUK identified. The real debate will start in earnest in Autumn next year, but it's heartening to hear that the UK (via BIS and RCUK) are more engaged with the consultation than they have been in the past.

Another interesting aside: under FP7 the EC committed to using 22% of the budget for SMEs. Currently it's only used 16% for this end, so if it wants to keep to its original commitment, it will have to up its percentage to 27%. So if you want European funding in the next few years, get in to bed with an SME - pronto.

One final point. Try googling FP8: nothing out there but Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP8. Not for much longer, I think...One of the camera's reviews says that the 'FP8' has a feature which is 'an uncomfortable annoyance,' and the manual provides 'not one word on how to proceed.' Any similarity with European funding is purely conincidental.

Looking at the (European) Road Ahead

Applying for European funding is a notoriously complicated and lengthy process. To make it worth putting yourself through it you need to be sure that your project is exactly what the EC wants, that you've got a good spread of partners whose involvement makes sense, and that you've had time to develop the structure, management and work packages within the project.
That's a tall order when the EC gives you just 6-7 months between announcing a call and the deadline for applications.
However, there are signs that the Commission recognises this, and is taking steps to improve things. At an event in London on Friday the UK National Contact Point for the Socioeconomic Sciences and Humanities, the ESRC, outlined the EC's 'roadmap' for the theme up to 2013. Dr Stephen Struthers, Principal Policy Manager at the Council, stressed that this was 'indictive', but that it gave some useful pointers of the EC's priorities over the next few years. This is particularly important as the SSH theme would be asking for more 'societal challenges' projects, which are huge (>€6.5m, >7 partners), and would require some considerable time to put together.
For more information on the roadmap, or on European funding general, do get in touch.