An R&D framework for growth or for sloth?

By Jerome Glass

Date: 31/03/05

The EU's Framework Programme for Research (FP) is a bit like the organisation that runs it, the European Commission: forever growing and determined to produce results, but accused of being overly bureaucratic and changing direction every five years.

Since the first programme was launched in 1984, the framework programme has been the EU's main instrument for funding research in Europe. Adopted by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, and run by the Commission, the latest programme, FP6, which covers the period 2002-06, has a budget of €17.5 billion.

For FP7 (2006-2010), the Commission has expressed its desire to double this budget. Lagging behind the US and Japan in investment, patent applications, and numbers of researchers, the EU is in danger of missing its self-imposed target of overall investment in research totalling 3% of gross domestic product by 2010. In attempting to convince the member states to commit more money to research and development (R&D), the Commission is hoping to lead by example.

The FP has been transformed into a motor for the Commission's much vaunted European Research Area (ERA), which became the obsession of Philippe Busquin, the previous research commissioner. The ERA emerged out of the Lisbon drive for a "dynamic, knowledge-based economy", which equated to a sort of internal market for research, consolidating the often fragmented European research community. From the outset, the FP was set up explicitly to favour Europe-wide co-operation on R&D, as proposals from bidders had to have a transnational dimension, involving several member states (or even, perhaps, non-EU countries). This was partly because the Commission was keen to avoid treading on the toes of member states' research. On top of this, funding was organised around "themes" which reflected the original treaty-inscribed objectives of the programme.

The themes have changed since the initial programme as scientific research itself has shifted its priorities. Initially focusing on information technology, communications and energy, the emphasis has moved more towards life sciences and training of researchers. In FP6, the main thrust of the programme was structural - the development of the ERA - with some €2.6bn invested explicitly for this purpose.

Despite its worthy intentions, the FPs have attracted criticism from researchers and industry alike. Foremost among these, is the charge that application procedures are too complex and time-consuming. A five-year assessment of the FPs conducted by a panel of leading researchers concluded that: "Today the procedures are out of balance in favour of financial control." It advocated harmonising the rules across the programme. The FPs have found it hard to attract interest from small and medium enterprises (SMEs), and the Commission has recognised that procedures to encourage research proposals from SMEs "need to be rationalised and regrouped to form a coherent whole".

The FPs have encountered other problems. Too often research consortiums fall apart once the project has been completed. Riskier long-term research has tended to suffer compared to safer, topic-based research, particularly when it is considered that EU funding only covers part of the cost of a project with the rest having to be borne by others. As the panel of experts noted: "The Framework Programme is not the most appropriate policy mechanism to promote short-term problem-solving". It advised that "the support of long-term RTD should be enhanced".

All of which strikes a chord with representatives of some of the longer-term R&D projects. Christian Kjær, policy director of the European Wind Energy Association, which represents 98% of the world wind power market, complains that "funding for wind energy was dramatically reduced and long-term funding under FP6 was completely removed". He cites an "untransparent" shift in Commission priorities and vague budget headings for the drop in funding, yet maintains that the FP can be an "extremely effective" tool for projects seeking funding.

FP6 has been quite successful at addressing some of these problems - establishing a new funding tool called Networks of Excellence aimed at achieving longer-term co-operation between consortiums, or setting up integrated projects for developing base knowledge in particular areas. The new focus on the ERA gives the FP a definite purpose, but the concern is that it might not be the best tool for converting research into innovative new products. For that, attention will perhaps turn to the newly established "technology

Major analysis feature on the EU's Framework Programmes for Research for 2006-2010, looking back on previous programmes.

• Primary Source

European Commission: DG Research http://ec.europa.eu/comm/research/index_en.cfm

---