© Science Europe
Science Europe: “constructive critic”
Since its formation in 2011, Science Europe, which represents 51 European funding organisations, has built a strong relationship with the European Commission. The body is working closely with the Commission on delivering the European Research Area and Science Europe’s work also includes a focus on Horizon 2020. The association has set up a working group to advise how member organisations should engage with the next framework programme, in addition to six scientific committees to provide advice and input to developing the Horizon 2020 work programmes.
Professor Paul Boyle is the president of Science Europe and believes that, on occasion, it is invaluable for the Commission to have a “constructive critic” of its work.
Horizon 2020 is now expected to receive nearly 12% less in funding following the European Council meeting last month. What effect will this have on research and innovation in Europe?
The view of Science Europe, and many research organisations across Europe, is that we were supportive of the original €80bn budget that was proposed for Horizon 2020. In principle, we are disappointed that there has been a reduction, although we are pleased that there has been a relative increase in this budget compared to FP7, particularly when many of the other budgets across Europe have been diminished. We are very happy that research and innovation has been recognised as a key area for investment at a time of austerity and at a time when the overall EU budget will be smaller.
Of course, we still don’t know what the actual final budget will be. It’s true that we expect it will be less than what was originally requested by the Commission, but we still have the European Parliament process to go through. We know that the Parliament was enthusiastic about the budget being larger than the €80bn proposed by the Commission, so it is possible that they will request more funding to go towards science and innovation – we’ll just have to wait and see.
Importantly, were we to come out with the budget that is being proposed now, we think the Commission can still deliver a coherent set of schemes within Horizon 2020 and fulfil many of the objectives that have been outlined. I think if the budget had been squeezed much further, that would have been a risk to certain Horizon 2020 schemes and such a restructuring would have been disappointing given the sensible package that is being proposed.
Do you think a lower-than-proposed budget will have an effect on participation?
I don’t think there is a reason to suppose that this will have a very negative effect on the engagement by different stakeholders. I would imagine that applicants, businesses and funding agencies will be enthusiastic about engaging with Horizon 2020 – the aim of trying to embed research and innovation is a good one. Of course, we will have to see how this is actually achieved as there are still many practicalities that need to be arranged in Horizon 2020. I would thoroughly imagine that engagement will be very positive, while bearing in mind that had there been more money, more projects would have benefitted and more people would have been awarded grants.
What are your thoughts regarding the simplification of rules and funding rates in Horizon 2020 compared to FP7?
I think there is a common consensus that the simplification of rules is vital in Horizon 2020. We need well-managed programmes which are coherent – academics that apply for Horizon 2020 funding need to be very clear on what they need to apply for and how to do it. Simplification must mean simplicity for participants as well as for the Commission. It is vital that the beneficiaries of Horizon 2020 see a simple world in regards to the Commission when applying for funding.
There is an argument that we should do more to allow nations to use their own accounting systems, and thought must be given to this. In addition, though, we need to recognise that this is not just about financial simplification – it really needs to be simplification across the board. This includes clarification on funding schemes, timeliness, learning lessons from FP7 and trying to put best practice into place when delivering funding schemes – all of these issues could lead to simplification which would be beneficial to all the players involved.
To what extent do you believe Horizon 2020’s pillars adequately reflect the difficulties facing Europe today?
I am supportive of the strategic framework for Horizon 2020. However, while these pillars may be satisfactory in broad terms, there is quite a lot of detail underneath them that needs to be thought through. The last thing we want to see is all the work completed in each of three pillars to be entirely separate from each other. There needs to be synergy across the different pillars and I would not like to think these three pillars are acting as silos. On the other hand, you do need a structure to manage the variety of different schemes that you are trying to put forward, so it will need to be a balance.
I would also argue that it’s essential that excellence is embedded throughout Horizon 2020. For example, whilst we have pillar called Excellent Science, excellence will be just as vital in Societal Challenges and Industrial Leadership. We also currently don’t know much of the detail around how the funding schemes will work in each of these pillars – there is still a lot of work to be done to decide how they are going to be delivered and how they might work in parallel.
Regarding social sciences and humanities related research, our view is that it makes a lot of sense to retain the seven challenges that are currently being proposed – there is the expectation that it may move from six to seven and we strongly support that, rather than having all the research undertaken by those in this sector mixed up with the security objective.
We also strongly agree with the Commission’s aim of embedding social science and humanities research across all the challenges, but recognise that this will be difficult to implement. It is a simple aim to state, but putting this into practice requires some considered work. Indeed, I would encourage others to read our position statement on this topic, which can be accessed from the Science Europe website.
Professor Paul Boyle
