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.

Delpy: I'm into Something Good

Prof David Delpy, looking for all the world like an ageing member of Herman's Hermits (or should the be Derek Smalls?), has been interviewed in Physics World. The EPSRC CEO robustly defended the Council's blacklisting procedure, pointing to the fact that the success rate has risen to 30% - way ahead of that of its sister Research Councils.

However, Prof Philip Moriarty, a condensed-matter physicist from Nottingham University, questions what he sees as the arbitrary nature of the blacklisting rules. He suggests that the EPSRC runs "a simple experiment" to test its assumption that grants falling in the bottom half of a ranked list are necessarily of poor quality.

"They should take the same set of proposals, send them out to different referees, and then give them to five different panels [and] look at the correlation in the ranked lists," he says. "If they are so confident that the principle underlying the blacklisting process is robust, then why not do this experiment? It would silence me and all the other critics of the scheme."

Well, don't hold your breath. I think EPSRC are quite happy with the new procedures, thank you very much, and won't be making a move any time soon to test the fairness of their underlying assumptions.