Turku Science Park Template English version

1
Discussion paper on the 7th EU Framework
Programme
Kari Toivonen Turku Science Park
File Turku Science Park 7 FP position paper v3.5
sent tarkastettu
2
General At the Lisbon summit in March 2000, the
Union set itself a strategic goal to become the
most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based
economy in the world by 2010. Results from the
European research entities set an important
foundation for this shift. At the Barcelona
summit the Union set another ambitious goal to
increase its research efforts to 3 of the GDP,
also by 2010. In spite of all the activities
since the Lisbon summit, the gap between the US
and Europe in knowledge-based industries is
widening, not closing, and at the same time Asia
is rapidly catching us up. This definitely calls
for new, decisive actions in Europe. The European
research agenda will play an important role in
meeting the strategic goals set at the Lisbon
summit. Therefore, expectations on the next
Framework Programme and its impacts throughout
Europe stay high. In spite of the unquestioned
importance of research in a knowledge- based
economy, research per se must not be the goal,
but its impact on society. We warmly welcome the
Commissions view that the primary goals for the
strengthened European research are growth,
competitiveness of companies, and employment.
Like the Commission states, scientific research,
technological development and innovation are key
tools in meeting these goals, and the next FP
should be viewed as a way to impact to the use of
these tools. We strongly feel that this
goal-setting with the presented hierarchy of
goals is imperative, it must be implemented
throughout the FP, and it will eventually
determine the success of the FP. Each of the six
major objectives planned to be part of the FP
should be assessed and funded purely against this
goal-setting.
Key Issues
Framework Programme should loudly and clearly
contribute to the Lisbon and Barcelona goals.
Decisive actions are needed to achieve these
goals.
Research per se should not be the goal, but its
contribution to achieving the goals set.
Primary goals for the FP are growth,
competitiveness and employment.
Through its six objective areas the FP will
impact on how scientific research, technology
development and innovation are emphasised and how
they contribute to the primary goals.
This goal-setting should be consistently used
throughout the Framework Programme.
3
General The Commission presents three
principles, according to which funding would be
allocated a balance between current and new
activities between research for the advancement
of knowledge and its industrial applications and
between support for human and material research
capabilities. We strongly emphasise two issues
first, correct balances can only be established
through consistent assessment of the contribution
that each option has in meeting the primary
goals. Second, the most important balance is
missing, or at least it is not expressly stated.
This would be the balance between the short-term
(1-5y), the medium-term (5-10y) and the long-term
(10-20y) impacts that the FP is expected to
yield. We feel that this missing balance should
overrule the presented three balances and that it
should be the key factor in determining the fund
allocation. By assigning clear priorities to
short, medium and long-term impacts, the
Commission has an effective tool to steer the
Union-funded research as to the timely impact it
is supposed to have. If the next FP is
anticipated to contribute to the Lisbon goals, as
we feel it should, considering the eroding
competitive position that Europe has, fund
allocation should favour short and medium-term
impacts. In case higher priority is given to
short and medium-term impacts, the instruments
of the FP as well as funding should favour
industrial utilisation of the research results.
This emphasis together with Europes limited
capability to transform knowledge into products
and to apply patents also highlights the
importance of IPR management and patenting. Both
of these areas should get special attention in
the next FP.
Key Issues
Determining the balance between short-term
(1-5y), medium-term (5-10y) and long-term
(10-20y) impacts should be the most important
balance overruling the presented ones.
The FP focus should be on the short to
medium-term impacts to contribute to the Lisbon
goals.
Short to medium-term impacts require focus on
applied research, utilisation of research
results, technology transfer and IPR management.
4
General In knowledge-intensive industries
throughout Europe, the role of dynamic SMEs will
be vital as to the industrial utilisation of the
research results. In some of the European key
growth areas up to 70-90 of the companies are
SMEs. This is why wider and more active
participation of the SME sector together with
specific tools to encourage such increased
participation should be one of the leading themes
throughout the FP. The Commissions intention, as
part of the preparation process for the next FP
to evaluate and rationalise all activities to
support research in SMEs and for their benefit
are well regarded. Increased SME participation in
the FP will clearly contribute to the success of
the FP. Another important issue regarding
increased participation of the SME sector is the
need for communication of the advantages that the
FP offers to SMEs. This deserves special
attention from the Commission as there seem to be
widespread misunderstandings, false impressions
and simply ignorance of such benefits. Having
the right focus within the time dimension is not
enough. A strict focus is also needed when the
scope of the next FP is defined. The Unions
research budget represents less than 10 of the
overall RD funding in Europe, and its impact
will depend on how well it can be leveraged.
Maximising the leverage requires focus on a
limited number of areas. These areas must include
the European key growth areas biotechnology,
telecommunications, aeronautics and
microelectronics, but good justification is
needed beyond those areas. Building European
added value in such growth areas by establishing
critical mass, strengthening collaboration and
exercising catalytic effect on national
initiatives would be the added value of the FP.
Key Issues
SMEs will have a vital role in utilisation of the
research results.
The FP should strongly encourage and support SME
participation horizontally, throughout the
programme.
Special attention is needed to communicate the
benefits and opportunities to SMEs.
To maximise the impact of the FP, it should focus
on a limited number of thematic areas.
Throughout the programme these focal areas should
be the European key growth areas biotechnology,
telecommunications, microelectronics and
aeronautics.
5
General The Commissions intention to double
the research budget will only impact a little in
meeting the Barcelona goals. National decisions
in the member states, and even more so decisions
by the industry will determine whether this goal
will eventually be met. Also in this respect the
catalytic impact of the next FP and its leverage
must be improved in all areas. Doubling the
budget will most likely also double the number of
proposals to be submitted. Halfway through the
FP6, roughly 28 000 proposals have been
submitted. Out of these only 20 have been
supported and, in particular, financing could be
provided to less than 50 of the proposals
considered to be of very high standard. It is
essential for all parties that the administrative
workload is minimised it should remain at the
current level. A two-stage qualification process
with a streamlined pre-qualification, followed by
the final application round among the qualified
applicants should be broadly implemented and
supported with sophisticated but pragmatic IT
tools. Even if the likelihood of waste work
were reduced through a two-stage qualification
process, the preparatory work could still be a
substantial burden (cost, effort) for smaller
research entities. The next FP should include a
mechanism where preparatory work for the
applications, deemed to be of very high standard,
would be financed even if the application were
not be qualified. This would encourage smaller,
but scientifically highly qualified research
teams to participate in the FP. Otherwise there
is a risk that the process will favour larger
entities rather than highly qualified entities.
Key Issues
Framework Programme will have impact only if it
will be leveraged and used as a catalyst.
Special attention is required to ensure that the
administrative workload does not increase even if
the application volume will increase.
Two-stage qualification process supported by
sophisticated IT tools would be needed.
Preparatory work for applications of very high
standard should be financed even if the
application is not qualified.
6
2.1. Creating European centres of excellence
through collaboration between laboratories The
Commissions view that establishing a critical
mass of resources in key areas for growth would
bring European added value is well supported. In
order to achieve the Lisbon goals it is
imperative to have a more integrated European
research agenda in the key growth areas.
Supporting transnational collaboration is an
effective way both to leverage the FP funding and
to make it act as a catalyst. Critical mass
should be established particularly by promoting
networking, rather than trying to attract the
best scientists from all over Europe to a few
powerful centres. Therefore, the next FP should
also include dedicated instruments to support
networking between less resourceful, but highly
qualified research entities in their areas of
expertise with well established and more powerful
research entities. These instruments should
provide specific incentives to powerful research
entities when they attract younger research teams
and SMEs to participate in their projects. Such
incentives directed expressly to more established
teams would be vital in improving dissemination
and utilisation of research results. It is vital
that a substantial proportion of the funding is
also allocated to smaller, genuinely working
networks. This will minimise the effort spent to
build unnecessarily large, or artificial
networks. The size of the network should not make
the decision, but the expected results and their
quality. Small, well-functioning networks also
offer a natural first stage for larger networks
and projects at a later stage. For SMEs in
particular, smaller projects and networks offer a
convenient way to learn about the FP.
Key Issues
Critical mass in key growth areas should be
created by promoting networking.
Networking should be encouraged by providing
incentives to larger and more powerful research
entities if they get SMEs and younger teams to
participate.
Small networks should be in equal position with
larger ones the anticipated results should
matter, not the size.
Small networks are an important first step to
SMEs and younger research teams.
7
2.2. Launching European technological
initiatives The initiative of technology
platforms is very important and strongly
supported bringing together companies, research
institutes, policy-makers, financial world and
regulatory authorities first to develop a shared
European vision, followed by a strategic research
agenda and a deployment strategy strengthens
Europes competitiveness and capability to react
to the development of technology. The results
from this process also offer a natural platform
for the use of the other FP instruments. Even
though industry is supposed to play a leading and
initiating role, special attention should be
paid to secure that the initiative will be for
the benefit of Europe, rather than for the
benefit of powerful industries, regions or other
actors only. During the strategy implementation
phase, special attention should be paid to
including SMEs and smaller research entities.
Technology platforms will have a great potential
to truly impact the European research agenda and
industry standards. All the rules and procedures
during the set-up or operation must be clear and
fully transparent. This initiative should not
be left as industry-driven only. The Commissions
active role is required in particular to ensure
that the necessary technology platforms will be
set up in the key growth areas. While the
industry in these areas is still in many cases
weak compared with more established technology
areas, the importance of technology platforms and
common research agenda in the growth areas might
be more beneficial to Europe. This should also be
reflected when the technology platforms are
decided. Growth areas should not be allowed to
become overrun by stronger but less relevant
industries.
Key Issues
Shared vision, strategic research agenda and a
deployment strategy clearly strengthen European
competitiveness.
Powerful actors must not dominate the Technology
Platform initiative.
Technology Platforms create substantial potential
and will have major impact, therefore all
processes from preparatory work to deployment
must be fully transparent.
The Commissions active role is needed to ensure
that technology platforms will be set up in the
key growth areas.
8
2.3. Stimulating the creativity of basic research
through competition between teams at the European
level The initiative to create a new mechanism
allowing researchers to propose projects on their
own initiative, without any thematic constraints
and only with the criteria of scientific
excellence is supported. Smaller or younger
research teams with a high scientific standard,
usually in a narrow research field, would take
this as a positive initiative. However, we feel
that the primary goals of the FP growth,
competitiveness, and employment also need to be
implemented throughout this initiative. This
would imply that also within this initiative
instead of complete freedom of research area,
adherence to the key growth areas and thematic
areas of the next FP should form the constraints
to be followed. Otherwise, the initiative would
not support the common goals of the FP. Like the
Commission states, industry has stressed that
there is an increasingly clearly recognised
impact by this type of research on financial
performance. This impact on primary goals of the
FP would then form a natural qualification
criteria for proposals, in addition to the
scientific excellence proposed by the Commission.
Another issue will be the definition of basic
research, which is not indicated in the
Commissions communication. In this respect the
Commission should take a broad view, rather than
a very limited view.
Key Issues
The primary goals of the FP also need to be
applied in basic research.
Thematic areas in the FP should also form the
constraints for basic research.
Definition of basic research is open, but
should be done broad-mindedly.
9

• 2.4. Making Europe more attractive to the best
  researchers
• There is a direct correlation between world class
  research and world class researchers, and no
  investment in material research capabilities can
  dilute the critical importance of high-quality
  individuals with great ambitions. For smaller
  regions, or any region located aside from the
  main research centres the capability to attract
  top-calibre individuals is one of the most
  burning issues. This is why we take the human
  resource part of the FP as the key issue in the
  execution of our research, innovation and
  business development strategies. Additionally, in
  order to meet the Barcelona goal, the number of
  researchers needs to be increased by more than
  30 by 2010, like the Commission suggests. This
  would be possible only if the research career can
  be made more attractive including career
  development paths, lifelong learning and
  opportunities to work some periods either in
  industry or in another geographic location.
• The Marie Curie initiative has proven its power
  and usefulness, and it seems to gather broad
  support from a variety of actors. Strengthening
  this initiative further is one of the most
  practical ways to increase both the
  dissemination of knowledge and impact of research
  throughout Europe. In particular we would
  emphasise
• Extended support to enhance transfer of knowledge
  for the benefit of SMEs together with more
  emphasis on exchange between universities and
  industry
• Extended support to promote mobility for the
  benefit of remote, but scientifically highly
  qualified research entities

Key Issues
Competence of individual researchers ultimately
determines the quality and results of research.
Human resources as part of the FP is the most
important issue within the programme.
The Marie Curie initiative should be further
strengthened and more effort should be put in
communicating the opportunities to SMEs.
Supporting researcher mobility and career
development is vital for SMEs and smaller
research entities located aside from the
mainstream.
10
2.5. Developing the research infrastructure of
European interest Improving the access to
trans-European infrastructures and services will
improve the productivity of the European research
community and reduce the need for overlapping
capital expenditure. This is important, as
research is constantly requiring more
sophisticated and more expensive tools. This is
why co-ordination in major investments would be
for the benefit of all and in particular for the
smaller research entities. However, a wide
transnational need and wide transnational access
must be the necessary prerequisites for funding.
Construction and operation of the new
infrastructure usually include major financial
commitment and therefore the link to the primary
goals of the FP (growth, competitiveness,
employment) must be strong and clear.
Additionally, such new infrastructures should be
focused on the European key growth areas.
Increased focus on funding access to
transnational infrastructures, like biobanks,
bioinformatics databases, or other similar
databases should be part of the next FP.
Key Issues
Trans-European infrastructure and services are
important as they improve the productivity of
European research.
Construction of new infrastructure should be done
only if there is a wide transnational demand and
if wide transnational access can be secured.
Major financial commitments require strict
adherence to the key growth areas.
11
2.6. Improving the co-ordination of national
research programmes Taking the Commissions
goal to better integrate the research efforts at
European level, the initiative to improve
co-ordination with national research programmes
at the European level becomes necessary. This
would offer a natural way to align the European
resources, get improved focus in the key areas
and ensure focus with the same goals. This would
also greatly contribute to and support some of
the other six major objectives in the FP, like
the European centres of excellence and technology
platforms. It would also create a platform for
effective networking within Europe.
Key Issues
Improved co-ordination with national RTD
programmes is necessary.
Better integrated national RTD programmes would
also better align the European resources for the
same goals and improve focus.
12
3. Raising research performance throughout the
Union It is important that all research
institutions within the Union with a high level
of ambition and scientific excellence will be
given equal means to take the road to excellence.
In order to promote the participation of younger
and less established research teams, institutes
and SMEs, the next FP should purposefully provide
specific incentives to established, more powerful
research centres when they get such younger or
less established participants in their projects.
An incentive directed at the more powerful
research centres would promote knowledge
dissemination, technology transfer and networking
all of which would play a key role in achieving
the goals of the FP. The Framework Programme
should be used throughout Europe, with one common
set of criteria. Complementary roles of the FP
and the Structural Funds are essential, and the
combined use of instruments provided by the FP
and by the Structural Funds must be allowed.
Key Issues
One common set of criteria should be implemented
throughout Europe.
Simultaneous use of Structural Funds and FP funds
must be allowed.
13
4. Focusing the European Unions efforts on key
topics The Unions capability to impact to the
European research effort is limited, and its
power depends on the capability to act as a
catalyst or as a leverage to involve both member
state public funding and even to a larger extent
to boost the industry research, innovation and
technology development. In order to increase the
impact, it is essential that the FP will have a
strict focus and clear emphasis on the key growth
areas identified by the Commission
biotechnology, information and communication
technology, microelectronics and aeronautics.
Energy and nanotechnology are highly competitive
sectors with substantial future potential and
should be included in these key growth areas. All
these were included in the thematic areas for FP6
and should be retained as key focus areas also in
the next FP. Re-evaluation of the key topics is
justified and even necessary from time to time.
Expansion into new areas must be justified by
applying the same set of criteria with all
thematic areas and assessing the contribution of
each potential new area against the primary goals
of the FP. Separating space research (in FP6
aeronautics and space) into a new research area
should go through the same process. Security
as a research area covers topics that are within
the FP6 thematic areas, like biotechnology and
ICT. While these clearly fit into the FP, other
areas like peace preserving and conflict
prevention would be difficult to justify, in
spite of their importance.
Key Issues
The thematic areas in FP6 match the current key
growth areas and should be retained also in the
next FP.
Expansion into new areas needs to be justified by
applying the same set of criteria with the
existing ones.
Some of the issues related to security are very
different from the other research areas.
14

• The next Framework Programme should clearly
  support the Lisbon and Barcelona goals and focus
  on contributing to growth, competitiveness and
  employment.
• Emphasis should be on short (1-5y) and
  medium-term (5-10y) results, on applied research,
  technology transfer and on commercialisation of
  the research results.
• Thematic focus should be clear throughout the FP
  with a strong emphasis on the key growth areas
  biotechnology, ICT, microelectronics,
  aeronautics. The more funding is required
  (construction of new infrastructure, technology
  platforms), the stricter the adherence to the key
  growth areas should be.
• Securing the position of smaller member states,
  regions, industries and research entities with a
  strong position in knowledge-intensive areas, and
  now facing new challenges between the new member
  states and large member states.
• Strong and pragmatic instruments to encourage and
  to support SME participation.
• Strong support to strengthen the Marie Curie
  initiative.
• Strong support to the Technology Platform
  initiative, but the Commission should play a key
  role in setting up new platforms the initiative
  should not be driven by strong industry
  organisations only.