Lessons to be learned from the 6 th FP Ramon Marimon Universitat Pompeu Fabra

1. Lessons to be learned from the 6th FPRamon MarimonUniversitat Pompeu Fabra EPP-ED Hearing on 7th FP European Parliament September 22, 2005 Ramon Marimon

2. Today’s EPP-ED hearing:A welcome and timely initiative! What will happen with the EC initial budget (72726 €million) proposal? and the EP endorsement to double EC funding in R&D? Ramon Marimon

3. FP6 shows the potentials of... • the European Community of Research and Innovation • the catalytic effect of EC funding on all EU public funding & ERA structuring • the appropriate (new) instruments to foster transnational collaborative research (recommendation 1) Ramon Marimon

4. FP6 also shows the dangers of... • generating different perceptions & unfulfilled expectations • leaving some important actors out • having an inefficient implementation Ramon Marimon

5. 1. The contrast between the implementation…(The New instruments in the first calls of FP6) Ramon Marimon

6. and the opinion of participants regarding the role of ‘old’ and ‘new’ instruments(from survey of Panel on “Efficiency…”) Ramon Marimon

7. 2. Not leaving important actors out! • Emerging groups should be attractedrather than discouraged from participation. The best research groups and the most innovative firms should be attractedsince they must play a leading role in structuring the ERA (recommendation 8) • For FP7 a much more flexible approach to SME participation should be explored (recommendation 9) • In it’s 100th anniversary, Einstein’s type of work would had not been founded by FP6… Ramon Marimon

8. The “linear model” • Vannevar Bush’s Science, the Endless Frontier: A Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research (requested by F.D. Roosvelt in 1944) Basic Research Applied Research Development Innovation Markets & Growth Laser & GPS Ramon Marimon

9. 3. Achieving efficiency: 3 general issues with 3 specific problems a) Critical mass and ‘The effect’ Ramon Marimon

10. From the first round of financed Networks of Excellence in Priority 7... • CLIOHRES.net:45 Universities and Research Centers in 31 countries • EU –CONSENT:51Partners from 27 countries • GARNET: 46 institutions from 15 countries • CONNEX: 43partner Institutions in 23 countries • EQUALSOC: 14 institutes from 11countries • EURODITE:28 Partners from 14 Member States Ramon Marimon

11. From the “Marimon” report... • “Critical mass” depends on the topic, the thematic area, the participants and the potential impact and added value. The concept of 'one size fits all' should not be applied across all thematic areas and Instruments. (recommendation 4) • Networks of Excellence shouldbe designed as an instrument tocover different forms of collaboration and different sizes of partnerships. (recommendation 5) • A greater role must be played by Instruments such as STREPs and small consortium IPs (recommendation 7) Ramon Marimon

12. b) Setting priorities & objectives and the “bottom-up” “top-down” “dicothomy”! Ramon Marimon

13. Pasteur’s Quadrant (D. Stokes, 1997) Consideration of use? No Yes Yes Quest for fundamental understanding? No Ramon Marimon

14. The controversial“recommendation 3” • The European Commission should specify the portfolio of Instruments available and the strategic objectives. • Participants should definethe specific research objectivethey will pursue and why this can best be met bytheInstrument theyhave chosen. i.e., set clear strategic objectives, but let researchers decide how to achieve them! Ramon Marimon

15. A simplistic view of FP7 • “Bottom-up” ERC (European Research Council) • “Top-down” JTI (Joint Technological Initiatives) • “In-between” TCR (Transnational Collaborative Research) Ramon Marimon

16. but... • Extremes are unrealistic (therefore, dangereous) • Separation of Science and Innovation may weaken them • Recall “Use-inspired-basic research” yet... • Different Sciences and Technologies are at • different stages • While some “societal needs” are clear the specific • ways to achieve them are not How do we go from Specific Programmes to Work Programmes? and why? Ramon Marimon

17. c) Simplicity and flexibility May require some building complexity Ramon Marimon

18. The main challenge: Reducing participation costs, while assigning funds efficiently • To improve the efficiency and reduce the costs for participants, awell conceived two-step evaluation procedure should be introduced. (recommendation 11) • Administrative procedures and financial rules should be significantly simplified and further improved to allowmore efficiency and flexibility in implementing participation instruments. (recommendation 12) (see also EC “Consultation on Simplification”) Ramon Marimon

19. but... • Rigorous evaluation is not a check list of predetermined criteria & without meaningful feedback • Administrative simplification is not to pass the burden to the users (e.g., audits in NoE) Ramon Marimon

20. Has FP7 learned the lessons? • Most issues have been dealt with and its budget should be defended!! yet... • Implemanetation is in the details • The “simplistic” view may dominate • Many practices and procedures are ‘rooted’ (e.g., unecessaryly detailed Work Programmes; some mechanistic evaluation procedures; complex contracts, ... ) • Its full potential in “people” and “capacities” should be exploited Ramon Marimon

21. Thanks! Ramon Marimon