How Does the Coronavirus Lockdown Affect Funding Applications?

Most funders are aiming to keep open
for business as usual - so get typing.
(Photo by Patrick Fore on Unsplash)

Every part of our lives has been affected by the current lockdown to tackle the Covid-19 outbreak, and the world of research funding is no exception. Some funders are postponing the deadlines for some or all of their schemes, while others are trying to continue as normal. Here we summarise what we know so far.

Beyond the Horizon

The long goodbye

With the UK due to leave the European Union on 31 January 2020, what’s ahead for international research funding for UK researchers? 

Brexit and the Suffocating Dog of Research

After the storm, the clear up. Or rather, after the storm, the running for cover. As the UK political infrastructure goes into meltdown, and politicians shake their heads sadly and claim that it was nothing to do with them - it's the 'will of the people' - a number of colleagues have asked about how Brexit will affect the UK’s ability to access European research funding, Horizon 2020. 

Learning to Love Poor Success Rates, and the Future of European Funding

EARMA: awash with conference coffee

Conferences are strange beasts. They're slightly unreal. It might be all that conference coffee, and having large, formal meals at times when you're not used to having large, formal meals. It might be all the fractured conversations you have, or the sense of bewilderment as you try and find the Wellington Suite for the fourth parallel session of the day.

At the European Association of Research Managers and Administrators (EARMA) conference in Lulea this week the unreality was compounded by the fact that the sun never really sank below the horizon. And, whilst most of the speakers (myself included) stuck squarely to the script, some seemed to have been affected by the parallel reality of sub-Arctic Sweden.

H2020 Grant Application Wins the Turner Prize

Excited members of 'ENdlessDIsapPOINTment' yesterday

In a surprise move, the Turner Prize was awarded yesterday to a bewildered group of twenty academics for an unsuccessful Horizon 2020 application.

To shouts of astonishment, the judges announced that the collective, known by their project acronym 'ENdlessDIsapPOINTment', had secured the prize for 'a ground-up approach to recycling an idea multiple times.'

H2020: Year One Report Card

Horizon 2020, the European Commission’s main programme for distributing research funding across Europe, has now been running for a little over a year, so it seems like a good time to check in on how things are going so far. 

We have already had 79 calls, and researchers across Europe have responded by submitting 25,903 proposals, asking for some €41bn. Around 14.5% of these have been successful (3,765), totalling €6.6bn. That’s around 8.5% of the total H2020 budget of €70bn for the seven year programme.

H2020: Where We're at

Going to a European research funding conference before the beginning of a new Framework Programme is a little like doing a jigsaw with no idea of the picture you're trying to piece together.

Each session gives you a few more pieces, and sometimes you pick up some extra pieces in the coffee breaks in between. You treasure these and hoard them, trying to work out their significance. When you have time you try to join them together and gasp in delight when two pieces join to reveal - some non-descript sky.

By the end you are, on the whole, wiser than when you started. You have got most of the basic picture pieced together, though there are always some key sections missing, and you're slightly neurotic that everyone else has those pieces and they're just not sharing them with you.

EARMA2013 has been no exception. At the end of the first day I feel I've got a sketchy understanding of what we're in for with Horizon 2020, but there's still plenty in the middle of the picture that's missing. I thought it would be useful to summarise where we're at with H2020.

The Structure

The basic structure of H2020 has remained essentially unaltered from the one that was first proposed by the Commission almost two years ago . The sense I get is that both the Council and the Parliament recognised it's logic and took the 'if it ain't broke' route. I outlined it in more detail here, but in summary there will be three essential elements - excellent science (i.e. responsive mode funding for 'basic' research, such as Marie Curie, the ERC, and the Future and Emerging Technologies scheme), the societal challenges (similar to FP7's Cooperation, but with more emphasis on the potential of research to solve society's ills) and industrial leadership (i.e. the enterprise and innovation funding).

The Budget

After late night negotiations last week the EC, Parliament and Council came to an agreement over the budget. H2020 got 70.2bn Euros, or 68.7bn Euros if you exclude Euratom. It's intended that small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) will get 20% of this.
It's less than the hoped for 80bn Euros, but its an outcome, a result, and you can almost hear the collective sigh of relief that an agreement has reached and we can move on to the drafting of the detail. Draft work programmes are already beginning to emerge, and we should have more solid detail in September/October.
The three pillars will divide the budget like this:

• Excellent science: 32%, or 22bn Euros;
• Societal challenges: 39%, or 27bn Euros;
• Industrial leadership: 22%, or 16bn Euros.

The shortfall is made up with schemes that don't involve research, such as Science in Society, is the EC's own in-house research (the JRC), or the EIT.

Rules for Participation

This is where things get more interesting. As always with a new Framework Programme, there's talk of simplification, but this time it seems to be justified. There is an intention to have a single document for each call, not the previous smorgsbord of annexes and additional documents. Thus, it will probably be like a home insurance policy, with an all inclusive document and a covering statement telling you which parts refer to you.
Better still there will be no time sheets for researchers working full time on a European project. The EC is also in the process of drafting a simplified Consortium Agreement, and intends to allow a 'broader acceptance' of each participants accounting rules for direct costs.
Yeah, right. We've got to give the Court of Auditors something to keep them busy, surely?

Reimbursement Rates

Reimbursement rates - i.e. the amount of funding you'll actually get - have been set at a 'simplified' 100% for the direct costs of all participants, and 25% for indirect costs. That's certainly simpler than than the complex algorithms which have characterised previous FPs.
However, there are some caveats. Projects that are 'close to market' may only get 70% funding for commercial partners, and there's talk of a 8k  Euro 'bonus' that projects can seek for non-profit partners.
In addition VAT will be an allowable expense.

Time to Grant

Most heartening of all, the EC is going to try to cut the 'time to grant' (i.e.negotiation time between being told you've got a grant and it actually being awarded) from the current 1+ year to 8 months. Uh-huh. Is that even possible? The EC certain hopes so. Two possible solutions 'being talked about in the canteen' are a tougher 'take it or leave' it line on negotiations, and asking reviewers to consider the project as a whole, rather than allowing them to favour the projects that excite them in principle, and leaving it up to EC officers to try and work out how to make it work in practice.

New Innovation Measures

Whilst many elements of H2020 will be a continuation of FP7, albeit reconfigured, the EC does intend to introduce additional funding to support innovation. This may include prizes, including inducement to commercial organisations to take part, and a 'fast track to innovation' scheme, which would have a rolling deadline, and would offer up to 3m euros for no more than 5 partners.

Open Access

The EC ran a pilot on OA during FP7. It is believed they are happy with the results, and want to roll it out throughout H2020. The costs of doing so - i.e. funding for article processing charges (APCs) can be included in a project, but will have to be included in the orginal budget. So bear that in mind when you come to us for your costing.

Encouraging EU-US Research Collaboration

The 2013 EARMA Conference kicked off with a full and frank assessment of the progress on the Bilat project. This had been funded under the FP7 Coordination pillar to try and encourage more involvement of American researchers in European projects. Who wouldn't want that?

Well, a whole raft of American universities, as it turns out. Although over 4,000 American academics and researchers have got involved in FP7 applications, of which around a quarter are successful, 40 per cent pull out during contract negotiations. The reason? The EC's fearsome bureaucracy.

When you think about it, this isn't a great surprise. The Americans have enough on their plates coping with the demands of the NIH, the NSF and other federal funders. To them the EC is small fry, and why should they bother untangling a whole new bureaucracy, and learning a whole new legal, contractual, financial and reporting system? To quote the Kids of Grange Hill, just say no.

And it was clear that the feeling was mutual. Agatha Keller of EU Grants Access spoke about her experience of having to learn the language of the NIH when the universities of Zurich were getting more than ten times as many projects from the EC.

However, all is not lost. Although a large number of American partners drop out during the negotiations stage, 88 per cent of them continue to maintain a relationship with the project. So the funding is not a deal breaker. The US collaborators really want to work with their EU colleagues.

What should be done to make this possible? Well the promised simplifications of Horizon 2020 will definitely help - as long as they materialise, of course. But Prof Manfred Horvat, who conducted a survey on behalf of the EC on its research cooperation with the USA, finished the session with some firm suggestions;

• Raise the visibility of the Framework Programme amongst American universities. This might be easier said than done; most American institutions are very 'mission oriented', and anything that falls beyond this is treated as an afterthought. 
• Get individual European countries to work more closely together, and present a more coherent, unified front. He gave a startling example, from his last visit to Washington, when he went to a number of European embassies, all of whom trumpeted their bilateral agreements with the US in nanotechnology, but none of whom were aware that any of their European colleagues were doing the same. At the very least all 28 EU states could set up shop together in the same building in Washington, so that it became a 'one stop shop' for American HEIs, as well as allowing the sharing of information between member states.
• Encourage 'bottom up' engagement in the US.
• Develop strategies for collaboration in the ERC, ETPs and JTIs.
• Stimulate mobility between US and the EU.

Whether this comes to pass remains to be seen. There has to be the political will to make it happen. With the simplification of H2020, as well as the desperate need to dig the world of the economic hole its in, the time might just be ripe.

H2020: Is Europe's Glass Half Full or Half Empty?

I attended the Research Europe Conference 2012 yesterday, which focused on the forthcoming Framework Programme, Horizon 2020. They'd rustled up an impressive roster of speakers, kicking off with the European research funding queen bee, Maire Geoghegan-Quinn, Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science.

She gave a confident and robust overview of the forthcoming framework programme. The Commission had become more open, and H2020 was the result of an extensive consultation. 'This is your programme', she asserted, whether you are a scientist, an entrepreneur, or a businessman, working for an SME or a multinational. It was intended to be enabling and inclusive, slashing red tape, and allowing 'more time in the lab, less on administration.'

At its heart was simplification. The complex structures of past frameworks had been boiled down to three pillars: support for excellent research, support for industrial leadership, and support for societal challenges. By keeping it simple, it was hoped that the best people would be encouraged to engage with Europe, including those who hadn't been involved before, or who were 'small players'. They would be willing to take risks, and decision making would be speedier. However, writ through the programme was excellence, and this would inform all that they did. In difficult economic times it was the countries that had invested in research and development that succeeded. Europe needed to grasp this nettle and accept this challenge.

Brave words, and she left the hall with a David Steel-esque rallying cry to return to your constituencies and prepare for – um – involvement. No sooner had she left the stage than Banquo entered in the shape of Chris Hull, Secretary General of EARTO, cooling the delegates ardour somewhat by highlighting the shortcomings of the plans.

He reminded the hall that, despite all the fanfare around the inclusion of 'innovation' in H2020, this had been the case before, and it hadn't been a great success. The Commission needed to look to the past and learn the lessons if it was to avoid repeating them. Whilst he recognised the worth of simplification, he dismissed the three pillars as nothing more than 'clever marketing': there was something there to please everyone, but would anyone be satisfied?

The wording of the Commission's proposals was ambitious, and the requested budget similarly so. But in reality, when compared to Europe's competitors, €80bn was the minimum that was needed to keep up. The Commission intended to use this budget wisely, to leverage money from private organisations and national public governments. However, with the Eurozone heading for melt down, national governments were unlikely to stump up any matched funding, and commercial organisations were likely to be more bear than bull.

He finished by signalling that a different style of programme management was needed if Horizon 2020 was to succeed. Governance should be the substantial focus, with stakeholder buy in. More than anything there was a need for more detail as to (a) what innovation was actually defined, and (b) how it would fit within programme governance. This, for Hull, was 'perhaps the critical, insufficiently addressed issue absent from the Commission's proposal.' 

Hull regularly comments on the H2020 LinkedIn Group, and I'd encourage you to join this group to get a sense of the way the wind is blowing as the Programme develops.

Open Access 'Snowball' Continues to Roll

Two interesting news items dropped into my inbox today.

1: The Times Higher reported that the European Commission will back open access publishing in Horizon 2020. Details of the proposal will be published at an event in Brussels on 20 June. The Director General for Research and Innovation, Robert-Jan Smits, was quoted as saying that it could make 'one hell of a difference.'

2: The Guardian reported that Winston Hide, associate editor of the Elsevier journal Genomics, has resigned from the editorial board. 'No longer can I work for a system that provides solid profits for the publisher while effectively denying colleagues in developing countries access to research findings,' he said.

It's an interesting coincidence, and suggests that (to quote Prof Tim Gowers in the THE article) 'the snowball is getting bigger'. However, some (ok, I mean the publishers of paid-for journals) question the desirability of open access. Income from subscriptions, they argue, allows them to spend more on selecting papers, editing and production.

I think this is a fair point, and worth bearing in mind. If funding does not come through subscriptions, they will need to be reimbursed for these costs from other sources. These could well be the funders of the original research, which would, in turn, mean that there is less money available to fund other research.

I'll continue to watch this snowball's progress with interest.

H2020 Negotiations: a Helpful Diagram

I know you're all itching to know what the timetable will be for the negotiations over the next Framework Programme, Horizon 2020. Well itch no more. Here is a brief run down of the run up to its glorious launch in January 2014. 

•          May 2012: European Parliament’s Industry, Technology, Research and Energy (ITRE) Committee publishes report on H2020.
•          June 2012: Parliament publishes amendments to the proposals.
•          July 2012: final calls to FP7.
•          Nov/Dec 2012: Parliament votes on proposals. The European Council (made up of national science ministers) will vote around the same time.
•          Dec 2012/Jan 2013: discussion (or, if you will, a trialogue) between the Commission,   Council and Parliament about the proposals and amendments.
•          June 2013: agreement should have been reached.
•          Dec 2013: Adoption of legislative acts by Parliament and Council that will bring H2020 into force.

Now that might all sound a bit complicated. Luckily, the Commission have published this useful diagrammatic representation of the process. 

     I think that clears things up, don't you? 

Horizon 2020: Slides from UKRO Talk Available

Thanks to all those who were able to make it to the UKRO European Funding event on 20 January. The slides and the handout from the talk on Horizon 2020, together with the slides from the ERC workshop, are now available on the Research Services website, here (Kent login needed). If you have any questions about them, don’t hesitate to ask.

We are starting to take bookings for the next European funding event, due to take place on 9 May. This will focus on the pros and cons of European funding, led by two academics (Prof Simon Thompson (Computing) and Jenny Billings (CHSS)) who have considerable experience of both the highs and lows of engaging with the EC. Notes from last year’s event are available on the blog, here; if you’d like to take part in May do drop me a line.

Looking to the Horizon: UKRO Talk - 20 Jan

‘Looking to the Horizon: the end of FP7 and the future of European funding’

Jo Frost, European Advisor, UKRO

12:30-14:00, 20 January 2012

Venue TBC

Jo Frost is the University’s representative at UKRO. Based in Brussels, she is tapped into official and unofficial sources of information at the Commission, and has a comprehensive understanding of how EC funding works. She will be looking, in this talk, at the final two years of FP7, and what the EC is planning for the new framework programme, ‘Horizon 2020’. The EC published its proposals for this before Christmas, and this will be an opportunity to get an idea of what is planned. In addition, with Research Council funding becoming more and more difficult to access, and European funding increasing (and ringfenced) until the end of 2014, there are still plenty of opportunities to consider applying to FP7. Jo will talk a little about recent changes to the programme that you might not have seen.

The talk is open to all. Tea and coffee will be available. If you would like to come along, contact me.

Jo will also be taking part in a workshop for those currently working on ERC proposals. If you would like to take part in this, and I haven’t contacted you already, do let me know.

Finally, Jo will return in May to take part in a Grants Factory session with Simon Thompson and Jenny Billings on the pros and cons of European funding (see the notes from last year’s session, here). This will be aimed at those who are new to European funding. I’ll send out more detail of this in due course.

To Arrive Where We Started

I mentioned the launch of Horizon 2020 last week. Looking through the detail I was interested to see that the proposed reimbursement rates are, to quote the League of European Research Universities (LERU), 'a true simplification for the participants, not only for the administrators handling the budget, but also, and very importantly, for the principal investigators.' Like LERU, I was pleased about this, though the European Universities Association (EUA, AKA the People's Front of Judea) is not so happy, though, seeing it as 'a clear step backwards'.

But what's not to like? The EC is proposing that it will fund 100% or direct costs, and 20% of indirect costs for all research projects. This would replace the current system which funds according to the activity, with research activities being funded at 75%, management activities at 100%, and demonstration activities at 50%. Moreover, indirect costs are calculated at 60%. As you can imagine, this all causes a large amount of stress and brain ache for both applicants and research offices, especially as the result often ends up as a figure roughly equivalent to 100% direct +20% indirect.

So top marks to the EC for taking the simple route. Interestingly, I was told that a similar algorithm had been used by them in previous iterations of the Framework Programme (though before my time). All of which brought to mind TS Eliot in Little Gidding:

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

Horizon 2020 Proposal Published

Get ready with the party poppers. Cue the scratchy copy of 'Ode to Joy' on the turntable. Don the cardboard hats depicted the flags of all (EU) nations. For yesterday the EC officially published the proposal for Horizon 2020. Hurray!

This marks the formal beginning of the new Framework Programme, by which the European Commission will distribute its research funding. There's been plenty of rumour and discussion as it has developed so far, but the publication yesterday gives us the starting point for the EC's negotiations with the European Parliament and Council, before the proposals are adopted at the end of 2013, and H2020 begins in January 2014.

The EC has set up a new website to mark the occasion. Here you can read about the background to the development of the proposal for Horizon 2020, and a timeline to outline key milestones in the forthcoming discussions as well as more details on each of the proposed areas and links to key documentation.

Better still, there's a page on which a new video will be added each day in the run up to the launch of Horizon 2020. That's 731 videos! I bet after the first 100 they'll be running short of ideas and taking the best viral hits from YouTube as their own. Watch out for an appearance by Benton/Fenton.

In summary, the Commission has proposed a budget of €80bn for the seven year Framework. It will be based on three specific objectives:

1. Excellent Science (EUR 24.6 billion) which will include:

• European Research Council (EUR 13.2 billion; 77% increase compared to FP7 funding for ERC);
• Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) (EUR 3.1 billion);
• Marie Curie Actions (EUR 5.75 billion) ; and
• Research Infrastructures (EUR 2.4 billion).

2. Industrial Leadership (EUR 17.9 billion)

• Key industrial technologies: nanotechnologies, information communication technologies, biotechnologies and space (EUR 13.7 billion);
• Access to risk finance (EUR 3.5 billion); and
• Support to SMEs with high growth potential.

3.Societal Challenges (EUR 31.7 billion)

• Health, demographic change and well-being;
• Food security, sustainable agricultures, marine and maritime research and the bio-based economy;
• Secure, clean and efficient energy;
• Smart, green and integrated transport;
• Climate action, resource efficiency and raw materials; and
• Inclusive, innovative and secure societies.

In addition, the European Institute of Technology (EIT) will have a budget of EUR 2.8 billion to fund six new Knowledge Innovation Communities. The first KIC call will be in 2014 and will include:

• innovation for healthy living and active ageing;
• food4future; and
• raw materials.

A second wave will be published in 2018 with proposed topics of added value manufacturing, smart secure societies and urban mobility.

So watch this space as the proposal develops, and make sure to visit the EC's own Video Vault. Thanks, as ever, to UKRO for the headsup on this.

Horizon 2020: Reading the Runes

UKRO, the UK Research Office in Brussels, have summarised where we're at with the development of Horizon 2020. If you belong to a subscribing institution, you can access this summary here.

It makes interesting reading, as much for reading between the lines as for the lines themselves. Whilst there's still plenty of gestation time for the EC's new baby, you can get a sense of how its developing. I've talked about the overall shape of Horizon 2020 elsewhere, but some recent developments that UKRO has highlighted include:

• EIT: there's no separate provision for the European Institute of Technology. To me, this suggests that they want closer integration with other parts of the Framework Programme, but does it also mean that the EIT is quietly being sidelined or shelved, that it is being reabsorbed back into the body from which it emerged?
• ERC: the latest proposals don't specify the different schemes as 'objectives'. This suggests that the EC wants to allow the ERC room to develop and introduce new schemes as and when necessary. Which, in turn, suggests that the EC has confidence in the Council, and is going to allow it a little more independence.
• Societal Challenges: this is based around six multidisciplinary areas. These are evolving as we speak, but some interesting developments recently. These include 'Smart, Green & Integrated Transport,' for which the EC has added a new section on 'evidence-based transport policy for the long term.' So the EC is wanting to expand future transport beyond the scientific and technical to include socio-economic policy implications. 'Resource Efficiency & Climate' has changed its name to 'Climate Action & Resource Efficiency including Raw Materials', which makes clearer the overall aim and direction of the challenge, and ecosystems have been made more of a priority within this. 'Inclusive, Innovative & Secure Societies', which is closest to the current 'Socioeconomic Sciences & Humanities', has been simplified, and appears to be moving away from the FP7 theme from which it emerged. Whilst the Humanities were never a huge player in FP7, it looks like it will be even less so under Horizon 2020.
• Marie Curie: the EC is obviously wanting to drum home exactly what each of the Marie Curie schemes will do. They've ditched the original headings, and gone for headings that provide more explanation of what each scheme is intended for. For example 'Research staff exchange' becomes 'stimulating innovation through cross-fertilisation of knowledge.' Got it?
• Industrial Leadership & Competitiveness Frameworks: not a lot of change here, although in the most recent drafts the EC is emphasising the need for these underlying technologies to link more explicitly to the societal challenges.

I would encourage you to read the UKRO document in full, and sign up for alerts that will keep you up to date with developments.

Meanwhile, on the Horizon...

UKRO have had sight of the most recent proposals for Horizon 2020. There's not a lot of change in the structure of the new Framework Programme (which Keith Sequeira outlined at the UKRO conference); it will still be based around four pillars, as follows:

• Tackling Societal Challenges (containing details of the six societal challenges);
• Excellent Science Base (covering the European Research Council, Marie Curie, Future and Emerging Technologies, and Research Infrastructures);
• Industrial Leadership and Competitive Frameworks (covering Key Enabling Technologies – ICT, nanotechnology, materials, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, and space – as well as Access to Risk Finance and Innovation in SMEs);
• The Joint Research Centre.

However, there is a substantial change in the suggested reimbursement rates. As you will remember, earlier this month UKRO was seeking feedback on the proposed rates at the time of 75% for research activities, with overheads of 75% of personnel costs. There was some disquiet over this, and the Commission is now proposing 100% of direct costs and 20% overheads on all eligible direct costs.

It will be interesting to see what difference this makes. For more detail of what's proposed have a look at the UKRO webpage, which you can access if you belong to a subscribing institution like Kent.

Horizon 2020: What's it Worth?

Plans for Horizon 2020 (which, as I don't need to remind you, is the new name for FP8) are coming on a pace, and UKRO reported today that the EC is currently grappling with the Gordian knot of what the Commission should pay successful applicants. The obvious answer would be, 'well, what they ask for,' but it's not that simple. Most European funding is given on a part funding or 'co-financing' basis, often calculated on an algorithm that makes the calculation of Easter look simple.

The current 'reimbursement rates' for FP7 are here (thanks, EUResearch, 'your Swiss guide to European research'). It all looks so simple, doesn't it? However, it's not as straightforward as the Swiss would have us believe, because these figures need to be cross referenced against an indirect cost rates matrix, which varies between institutions, and can be the 'simplified (ha!) method', 'standard flat rate', or 'special transition flat rate'.

Anyway, looking forward, UKRO has read the runes and it looks like the EC might propose Horizon 2020 reimbursement rates as follows:

• up to 75% for research activities,
• 50% for innovation activities, and
• 60% for combined research and innovation activities.
• Marie Curie and ERC would be up to 100%, as at present.

These would be for all participants (both academia and industry) and would apply to an entire project, so there wouldn't be the distinction for non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and SMEs, or for different activities within a project.

Indirect costs would be a flat rate 75% of personnel costs, again for all participants. No 'real' indirect cost system would be available. ERC would have indirect costs of 25% of personnel costs, and support actions (CSAs) 7% of personnel costs.

UKRO has already had feedback on these proposals from a handful of institutions, most of whom are worried that the rates would work out worse than those currently being offered. They weren't sure that having a single rate was all it was cracked up to be, and were particularly worried that management costs would be less than 100%, making coordination a lot less attractive. Also, the lower reimbursement rate for mixed activity projects (including research and innovation, which the EC is particularly keen to encourage) might actually discourage organisations from participating in such activities. As to indirect rates, most would prefer the current 'special transition flat rate' (of 60%) to continue.

Those institutions that have done some modelling believe that only projects that are personnel-heavy would be better under the new regime. In addition, the ERC might be badly hit, with a move from a 20% flat rate for indirect costs to 25% for personnel-only costs could be significant. There might be some savings made in the cost of managing the grants, but these, it was thought, would be outweighed by the losses.

The full UKRO analysis is available here (you have to be a subscriber to access this) and they would welcome other feedback by 9 September. So get your calculators out and get modelling!

New Marie Curie Schemes

Two new pilot schemes will be introduced for the next round of Marie Curie Actions, due to be published on 20 July. They are intended to fill a perceived gap in the provision of training for early stage researchers (ESRs).

• Innovative Doctoral Programmes (IDPs). This replaces the ‘Monosite Initial Training Networks (ITNs)’, and aims to encourage crossovers between disciplines, sectors and states. Whilst there are plenty of doctoral schools across Europe, it's relatively rare to see ones with genuinely international, interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral programmes. The IDP is intended to rectify this.
• European Industrial Doctorates (EIDs). This is intended to encourage companies to get involved in doctoral training. The EID should involve at least two participants (one from each sector), and possible associated partners in any sector/discipline/country. Each researcher must be enrolled in a doctoral programme, be employed by at least one of the participants, spend at least 50% in private sector, and be jointly supervised by both participants. There should be 1-5 researchers per project.

There is considerable flexibility in the new schemes, but if all goes according to plan there will be even more flexibility in Horizon 2020. The EC is intending to simplify the current range of eight Marie Curie schemes into four broad schemes (as mentioned in an earlier post):

• A scheme for early stage researchers (i.e. doctoral students): this would allow a host institution to put in place a network for providing training for doctoral students from across Europe;
• A scheme for more experienced researchers: this would provide individual fellowships to encourage mobility and career development opportunities;
• A scheme for research staff: a smaller fund for short term exchange and secondments between institutions.
• A scheme to match fund national fellowship schemes: this would be see the continuation of the 'cofund' scheme.

Part of this push has come from the responses to the consultation on the FP8 Green Paper, in which there was a specific question about strengthening and promoting research mobility (question 23). 70% of respondents considered Marie Curie to be important, but felt that it needed a higher budget, more collaboration with business, and more streamlining.

European Funding: What's on the Horizon?

Keith Sequeira, Policy Officer for the Framework Programme and Simplification Unit, gave an insight into the development of the future framework programme, Horizon 2020, in his keynote address to the UKRO Conference in Newcastle on Thursday.

This was an important time for Horizon 2020: the proposed budget had been announced last week, and the starting gun for negotiations had been fired. Horizon 2020 would combine elements of FP7, the Competitiveness & Innovation Programme (CIP), and the European Institute of Technology (EIT), as well as linking to relevant parts of regional and structural funds. An increase of 46% had been proposed (to €80bn), but Sequeira made it clear that, whilst this sounded like a large increase, it represented a steady increase on the funding levels reached at the end of FP7.

In terms of the content of Horizon 2020, there would be three broad ‘pillars’, with a fourth set of cross cutting priorities:

• Supporting excellence in science base: to face the imbalance with the USA, and the challenges from China, by attracting, developing and supporting world class research, through the continuation of such streams as the European Research Council (ERC), Future and Emerging Technologies (FET), Marie Curie Actions (MCA) and research infrastructures.
• Tackling societal challenges: identified as health, food security, secure and green energy, smart, green and integrated transport, raw materials and climate, and inclusive societies.
• Integrating innovation and links with business: including leveraging private finance.
• Cross cutting priorities: in particular simpler access and openness to newcomers.

Overall, Horizon 2020 aimed to integrate research and innovation, and meet the objectives of Europe2020 and the Innovation Union. The EC wanted to move away from prescriptive descriptions of tools and methods, and instead present the problem to be solved and leave it to individuals to decide best way to do so.

There was a strong appetite for simplification. But then, how many times have we heard that before? However, they do sound serious this time. Inter alia, they intended to introduce:

• a rationalised set of funding schemes and instruments;
• a single set of rules for eligibility, accounting, reporting and auditing;
• a simplified approach to cost reimbursement;
• a broader acceptance of usual accounting practice and greater use of lump sums and flat rates;
• shorter negotiation and selection phases;
• a unique IT portal, common support structures, and guidance which would build on EPSS of FP7;
• more use of external management of the programme, through such bodies as the Research Executive Agency (REA), which already runs the MCA.

The budget and structure would continue to be discussed in the final years of FP7, and UKRO would continue to inform the UK HE sector on developments.