A Community framework for R & D : with evidence / Select Committee on the European Communities.
- Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Select Committee on the European Communities
- Date:
- 1990
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: A Community framework for R & D : with evidence / Select Committee on the European Communities. Source: Wellcome Collection.
131/156 (page 97)
![Question I] The role of the EC in funding R&D should focus on a number of tasks ie co-ordination; access to facilities; support of policy and standards; and education and training. To carry out these tasks requires a “directed” rather than a “reactive” approach, with attention focused on specific high priority issues. However, it is important to ensure that within the “directed” funding envelope, applicants are able to apply in a reactive way for support for particular aspects of research. Question 12 The NERC has already referred (Section 1(a) of evidence above) to the need for European R&D programmes to demonstrate the “added value” of having a European as against a national or even wider international programme. This should be the key criterion in determining whether an EC initiative is justified. Question 13 It is a concern that there is so little detail within the programme lines of the new Framework against which to assess the validity of the Commission’s proposals. In developing the details of projects, the Commission should take full account of the views of the European scientific community. It needs to develop a better and more open involvement of working scientists in its programme formulation. Failing that, the UK must ensure that the ideas of its scientific community are fed into the Commission at an early stage. Recently, it has become apparent that in the environment area, the Commission is turning to the ESF as a source of advice on basic science programmes. This is to be welcomed as a bottom-up input, also involving the EFTA nations, although it can only represent a sample of scientific views across Europe. It cannot replace the need for strong national inputs in the development of EC programmes. It is also important to ensure that the ESF, although in receipt of EC funding, remains an independent sounding board for the scientific community throughout western Europe (EC and EFTA nations) and with developing links to eastern European countries. Question 14 The promotion of research co-ordination is one of the roles appropriate for the Commission and figures within the revised Framework Programme. For instance, Line 6 (Human Capital and Mobility) is designed to promote scientific cohesion as recommended by the independent Review Board in terms of “encourage- ment to the scientific humus of Europe”. Scientific excellence should, however, remain a primary criteria for support at least of basic and strategic research. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Priorities and Mechanisms of European Research 1. In the past, there has been a temptation for the EC to spread its resources too thinly. Priorities need to be critically assessed against the criteria of the need for co-ordinated European action, the priority requirements of the policy Directorates, and the cost-effectiveness of the action proposed. Clear and achievable objectives need to be set. 2. The size and scope of some programmes, such as that on human capital and mobility proposed in the new Framework Programme, are clearly impractical and need revision. 3. Thescience community is often too remote from the decision making process. There are good examples where the UK community has had a strong influence on EC programmes, but most representation is at the Working Group level which comes into being once overall policy has been defined. Specialist inputs need to be made at a number of stages: policy formulation; identification and preparation of programmes; programme appraisal and approval; programme monitoring; and assessment of results. 4, Although EC funding can be 100 per cent it is usually limited to a maximum of 50 per cent of the costs, with the remainder coming from the Science Budget or from another customer. Hence EC funding usually influences the direction of more research than it supports. This, the considerably bureaucracy involved in the EC application machinery, and the need to expend often considerable energy in finding European partners, has in the past contributed to a lack of interest by some UK scientists in seeking EC support. However, because the Science Budget baseline is reduced to compensate for increases in EC budgets, EC funds cannot be regarded as “extra” money and must be won if they are not to be lost to the Science Budget. This will demand increasing effort and reinforces the need to attempt to ensure that UK scientists have a strong influence on EC priorities. Impact of European Research 5. Inrecognition of the future importance of the ECrole in R&D, NERCestablished an office in Brussels in 1984 to represent and promote its interests in Community R&D, to assess the opportunities for contract work and to obtain early intelligence regarding Community programmes. In 1985 the services of this office were extended to the higher education sector on payment of a small fee. In 1987 the other four Research Councils joined with NERC. The Brussels office is now operated on behalf of all five Research Councils and has 54 higher education institutions (HEIs) in membership. I](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32218965_0131.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
