And the Winner Is...

News has come through on the wires from our Brussels correspondent: the EC has announced the winner of the 'Name FP8' competition. Hurray! Get ready with the party poppers, but don't touch the twiglets and low alcohol cava til I say.

As I'm sure you remember, the EC was looking for a snappier title for the new, all encompassing Framework Programme. Something that summed up the brave new world of funding. Something aspirational and forward looking, European and twenty-first century. Something better than the 'Common Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation.' They selected three suggestions from the general public, and put these to a vote.

I can now announce the winner. In reverse order:

• 'Discover 2020', with 2478 votes;
• 'Imagine 2020', with 2785 votes;
• 'Horizon 2020', with 3055 votes.

And I therefore declare 'Horizon 2020' the new FP8. The full and official name will apparently be 'the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation'. Now call me an old cynic, but if that's the full name I bet it will get shortened to 'the Framework Programme' rather than 'Horizon 2020'. But we'll see. I wish it all the best, and hope it has more luck than it's close namesake, Deepwater Horizon. Or indeed the Talbot Horizon. Or the crew of 'Event Horizon.'

Hmm. Not an auspicious group. Is it too late to change my vote to 'Monster Raving Loony 2020'?

Interestingly, it turns out that there is already a European initiative called 'Horizon 2020'. Ah, only in Europe. A zillion Euro budget, an army of bureaucrats, some of the greatest minds in the Western world, and they still don't know what's going on down the corridor.

Horizon Scan: Research Funding in 2020

2020: all eyes to the horizon

What does 2020 hold in store for those working in the world of research funding? Here's what's on the horizon in the months ahead.
_______________________

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? 

The Price of Prosecco

Kortrijk. Helps salve the horror of Brexit (image: R/DV/RS CC BY)

With more detail of the EU's next Framework Programme, Horizon Europe, crystallising in Brussels, it's time to look back at an article I wrote last year on the need for Britain's academic leaders to lobby MEPs and make the case for the UK's continuing involvement. 

When Theresa May wrote to Donald Tusk informing him of the UK’s intention to leave the EU, I made sure I was out of the country. It felt too dispiriting for a Europhile to witness this act of self-harm. I cycled down from my home in Canterbury and went through the Eurotunnel, emerging into the bright flatlands of Nord Pas de Calais and then cycling on to the Belgian border, stopping at the end of the day for a beer in the beautiful town of Kortrijk.

As the sun went down on the medieval square, I thought about the effect that the UK’s withdrawal would have on our engagement with the EU, and in particular how it would affect our work both in securing research funding and in encouraging the brightest European minds to work in our universities.

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.

Bonfire of the Sanities

Since the EU Referendum last year, there has been a lot of uncertainty about what it will mean for UK academics. In the last edition of the Research Services' newsletter, Research Active, we looked at known unknowns, and why European funding is crucial to the University—and the UK as a whole.

Current Situation

The EU has made it clear that, until the UK actually leaves the Union, it is still a full Member State, with all ‘rights and obligations’: ‘UK legal entities [are eligible] to participate and receive funding in Horizon 2020 actions,’ it confirmed.

Grants Factory 2013-14

This year sees our most ambitious Grants Factory yet. Not only are we continuing with the programme of workshops run by experienced academics, but we're building on the success of last year's Early Career Researcher Network to offer a forum for ECRs to meet and discuss issues around developing their careers, and we're complementing both with a series of Writing Group drop-in sessions.

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.

To Infinity and Beyond

Horizon Europe: an artist's impression

Those of you with long memories may remember the naming of Horizon 2020. There was a competition to come up with a shortlist of names. This was then put to a public vote. Horizon 2020 won by a mere 270 votes. The runner up was Imagine 2020, which frankly sounds more like a futuristic question than a bold title.

This time round they've eschewed a public vote in favour of a decision by an anonymous group, with an announcement slipped out in a blogpost written by Carlos Moedas. I really can't think *why* the EC may have been nervous about putting things to a public vote.

Engaging with Europe

In April I wrote about the European Research Area, the ‘borderless continent’ that the founding fathers of the European Union hoped to achieve. The ERA can best be seen as a work in progress, but that shouldn’t stop academics from engaging with it and trying to influence its future direction and focus.

To many, the European Commission can seem like an impenetrable technocracy. If you ever hear a commissioner speak, it will do little to dispel this notion. I wrote once about the basic components of a Commission presentation. The vital elements are PowerPoint slides dense with text, detailed maps of the process by which directives have been agreed, preferably involving an incomprehensible flowchart, lots of clip art, and a peppering of unexplained acronyms.

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!

What's on the Horizon?

Cue 'Ode to Joy' (photo: Phil Ward)

A proposal for Horizon Europe, the successor to Horizon 2020, is due to be published on 7 June 2018. However there have been plenty of hints, suggestions and straightforward leaks already, and the current plan is the worst kept secret ever. So what do we know so far? Well, unless there are significant changes in the next couple of weeks, here are the seven take home points.

EC Work Programme: Polish Presidency 2011

I know the blog's been a bit eurocentric recently, but hell, that's the way le petit gateau sec crumbles. Anyway, UKRO are reporting what the EC's got lined up for the Polish presidency (ppt) in 2012. Hmm. Not relevant to us, surely? Au contraire. See, there's a few research-related dates you should be aware of:

• 27 Sept 2011: a Communication on 'Partnering in Research and Innovation'. Not sure what this will be, but perhaps it will give us a clue as to how the EC wants business and academia to collaborate in the future.
• 30 Nov 2011: full proposal for Horizon 2020, including necessary legislation, specific programmes, and rules of participation;
• Dec 2011: a Communication on developments in the area of access to scientific information. Open Access ahoy!
• 5-7 Dec 2011: Innovation Convention, and report on progress towards an Innovation Union.

Looking further forward, in 2012 we've got these policy gems to look forward to:

• ERA Framework, which as UKRO understands, will include a large scale public consultation (this was originally planned for late 2011 but has been put back due to the development on Horizon 2020).
• Communication on enhancing and focussing international cooperation in Research and Innovation
• Communication on the state of implementation of the Innovation Union and mainstreaming of innovation in EU policies
• Recommendation to Member States on Structural changes in universities and research in institutions to promote gender equality
• Communication on the establishment of a new Europe 2020 headline indicator to monitor progress in innovation.

Finally, it will be pushing forward on its Joint Programming Initiatives. As I'm sure I don't need to tell you, the aim of these is 'to pool national research efforts in order to make better use of Europe's precious public R&D resources and to tackle common European challenges more effectively in a few key areas.' And what are those few key areas? I'm glad you asked. UKRO's sources say that they are:

• More years, better lives (already launched in July 2011)
• Water challenges for a changing world
• Healthy and productive seas and oceans
• Climate change
• Antimicrobial resistance (Planned for 3rd quarter 2011)
• Urban Europe (Planned for 4th quarter 2011)

European Grants Factory - 9 May

On 9 May we will be joining in the University’s celebrations for ‘Europe Day’ by holding two European Grants Factory events.

12:00 – 13:00 An Overview of Horizon 2020
Sobia Aslam (UKRO) 
Rutherford Lecture Theatre 2 

Sobia Aslam from the UK Research Office in Brussels (UKRO) will provide an overview of the EU’s new funding programme for research, Horizon 2020. It will succeed Framework Programme 7 (FP7) in January next year. It has a proposed €80 billion budget (a 46% increase over FP7), will bring together both research and innovation, and is intended to simplify the process of applying to the EC. Draft work programmes will start to emerge over the summer, so now is an excellent time to find out more about the new framework.

 In addition, Sobia will be holding a surgery session after lunch to discuss individual applications, or focus on specific issues. So if you have questions about H2020, or perhaps have a Marie Curie application on the go, get in touch to book a slot.

13:00-13:30 – Lunch 

13:30-15:00 – European Funding: is it for me? 
Prof Simon Thompson (Computing) & Jenny Billings (CHSS) 
Rutherford Lecture Theatre 2 

This is a rerun of last year’s sell-out seminar that offers a warts and all view of the European funding. The EC is notorious for the complexity of its applications, but unlike the UK funding for research is ringfenced and growing. Jenny Billings (CHSS) and Simon Thompson (Computing), both veterans of EU funding, offer their insights into the highs and lows of applying for, managing and reviewing European applications.

The events are free, but do let me know if you are planning to come so that I can make sure there’s enough space and catering for all.

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.

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.

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'...

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.

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.