EU Framework Programme for European research and technological development : evidence / Select Committee on Science and Technology.
- Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
- Date:
- 1997
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: EU Framework Programme for European research and technological development : evidence / Select Committee on Science and Technology. Source: Wellcome Collection.
38/254 page 30
![Lord Gregson contd.] complemented in many ways by, through market forces, collaboration with other countries including India. Lord Lewis of Newnham 20. May we turn to the actual Framework 5 Programme that is being projected by the Commission themselves. You made a very clear point on the assessment of the previous programmes. One presumes from that lessons were learned that will be transposed into the next framework programme; yet it would appear to me that, looking at this particular group of topics that are now being chosen, there is a significant change in direction more to the social objectives within societies rather than perhaps some of the other programmes that we have been involved in. There are two points I would like to ask you. One is how far you agree with this particular change in direction and, if you do, what you attribute it to from the point of view of previous experience and assessments of the programmes, and how you see the continuity of programmes that have been started previously which in other programmes have been continued in certain ways into the next round? (Mr Wright) One needs to look at the Commission paper in the sense in which it was drafted—as a statement of principles. We regard it as being a very skilfully drafted document which at one level was designed not to upset anybody and it is very difficult to pin down what the Commission is intending to bring forward from these principles into their proposals for the next framework programme. Certainly one can read into it I think a degree of shifting from competitiveness towards social objectives. That certainly comes out through some of the statements. On the other hand, if one analyses in depth the individual priorities that are described one finds a list of areas very similar to FP4. We would not want to see a shifting in the 5th Framework Programme away from research aimed at developing technology. That we see as the primary purpose of the 5th Framework as we have made clear in our position paper. At the same time there is a need to continue to produce the research that will support development of European policy in other parts of the Commission. We would expect the balance—which at the moment is something like just over 60 per cent on the industrial end with some 25 per cent on the social end—to be maintained roughly in the Sth Framework Programme. Of course in another sense it is not the case that the social and industrial objectives are distinct at all because certainly the concern over sustainable development is creating new industries, new environmentally friendly technologies, and the application of telematics to social needs, for example for the disabled, for the elderly, is also opening up new markets. There is a blurring in the middle of that distinction as well but overall we would expect the balance to be roughly much the same. We are not entirely clear that the Commission was intending the balance to be read differently, but I certainly accept that it could be read that way. _ 21. Do you anticipate that the directives involved in the EU would be different? (Mr Wright) We would expect that by getting a much closer link between the policy directorates and the research effort in the social end as we have described, that yes, directives, the development of policy in Europe, would be better informed. That has always been seen to be an important part of the framework programme. We would expect it to continue to be an important part, but we would not want to see a shift in that direction in terms of the overall balance of the programme. Baroness Platt of Writtle 22. You mentioned at the beginning of your introduction that you wanted to see the programme more tightly focused. In our evidence from the EPSRC they say very firmly that that is something they would welcome because much effort is expended because almost anything could go in and that means wasted effort. J am not absolutely certain but in Annex C in the paperwork we have had in your examples thematic objectives for FPS, and that does seem to me to be all things to all men. I read that under sustainable farming and fishing the theme would include biodiversified environmentally friendly farming systems and then goes on, it seemed to me, to include anything, I wonder do we need to focus it more tightly? (Mr Wright) That is a very fair question. It is a very difficult thing to do to try to focus the framework programme. What we are trying to do is to describe in this paper the sort of areas of research that we think are going to make the biggest contribution to Europe in the longer term. Within the programme as a whole we are trying to identify clear areas where research is needed and where research is going to add value. There are a number of those areas and we would not want artificially to constrain that beyond a reasonable level. What we want to have is a very clear statement of what the framework is intended to address. Beyond that there is another point that comes from that question. Individual calls for proposals must be very clearly specified as to what it is they are driving at because at the moment the success rate of the proposals is very low with the implication that a lot of people are investing a lot of effort and a lot of money in developing proposals which are going to go nowhere. We have made clear to the Commission and more generally that we think it is absolutely crucial that' the calls for proposals are crystal clear and very tightly drawn in order not to waste that money. So my answer essentially is on two levels. First, we want to constrain the programme and not allow too many baubles to be hung on it like a Christmas tree, and then, within the programmes that are determined, to try to get the calls for proposals as clear as possible. 23. That does not become immediately obvious from Annex C. We had a Select Committee a year or so ago on biotechnology and global competitiveness and I know at that time we were very concerned that Europe should not be too bureaucratic and regulatory. I was concerned at the end of Annex C where it says at number 13 that some of the research should be to improve wealth creation, but then it talks about the importance of industries being able to](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32218734_0038.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
