EUfunded Health research collaboration in FP7

1
EU-funded Health research collaboration in FP7

• Ruxandra DRAGHIA-AKLI, Director, DG for Research,
  European Commission
• Jacek KUZNICKI, Director, International Institute
  of Molecular and Cell Biology in Warsaw, Poland
• Ales STRANCAR, Managing Director, BIA
  Separations, Slovenia
• Sabine HERLITSCHKA, Director, National
  Coordinating NCP - FP7, Austrian Research
  Promotion Agency in Vienna, Austria

2
Good, better, best - use of EC Framework
Programmes
Jacek Kuznicki and Magda PowierzaInternational
Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology in
Warsaw, POLAND
3
Three major parts

• What is good in FPs?
• What was changed for the better from FP4 through
  FP7, and what was not so good?
• What can be done to have the best outcome?

4
A - means good - our positive experience with FPs

• As a scientist
• FP4 grant of 5 labs from MS
• and 5 from Ass. Countries (1992-1995)
• As a director of the institute
• in basic research
• Grants of FP5, FP6 and FP7
• FP5 CoE in a 7 success rate call

5
FPs grants at IIMCB
FP7 - ca 1.5 mln EUR HEALTH-PROT - CSA 954 100
EUR 09-12 NEURO.GSK3 - IP 280 840 EUR
08-11 SBMPs - ITN 263 284 EUR 08-12 FP6 - ca
2.3 mln EUR MEMPROT - TOK 626 800 EUR 06-10
ENDOTRACK - IP 428 400 EUR 06-10 PROMEMORIA -
IP 478 000 EUR 05-09 APOPIS - IP 161 200
EUR 04-06 PLASTOMICS - STREP 164 160 EUR
04-07 EURASNET - NoE 120 000 EUR 08-10 VOLVOX
- SSA 38 534 EUR 05-08 DNA Enzymes -
ITN 254 452 EUR 05-09 EUROGENTEST - NoE 30
000 EUR 05-09 FP5 - ca 1 mln EUR Centre of
Excellence 350 000 EUR 03-06 Cell
Chipcoordination 231 703 EUR
01-03 ANTISTAPH 238 382 EUR 02-06 REFLAX 149
000 EUR 01-03 Chaperones 64 776 EUR
03-04 CF-Network 9 600 EUR 02-03 CEEBT
23 430 EUR 04
6
Objective of the FP5 CoE call

• To improve the links between outstanding
  research centers in the 10 New Members and other
  research centers in Europe, through networking,
  exchanges, training and twinning activities.
• Quality of Life and Management of Living
  Resources Support for the Integration of Newly
  Associated States in the European Research Area"

7
GdanskBioMoBil
TartuGENERA, MEDERA
VilniusBIOCEL
JastrzebiecANIMBIOGEN
WarszawaABIOMED, BRAINS, CEDNETS, CEMBM, MAMBA,
PERFECT
Lódz MolMed
KrakówSTEC
BratislavaHEAR NAS
DebrecenCE-MolMed
BudapestATHERNET, CBCH
SofiaEUROCOG
8
Organization of scientific events by 18 CoEs of
FP5
9
FP6 grants of 18 CoEs


10
Publications of 18 CoEs
11
FP5 program of Centres of Excellence

• These 18 CoEs integrated well into European
  Research Area, and
• All this cost EC . 6 mln Euro!

12
A in conclusion

• FPs are good they enhance collaboration and
  increase research budgets
• Usually they mix well two policies cohesion and
  competitiveness
• Some had major impact of NMS
• - CoE (integration into ERA)
• - Balanced consortia (FP4) partners addition
  (FP5)

13
B means only some changes are for the better from
FP4 through FP7

• What is good?
• What is not so good?

14
FP6 success rates above 20
12/11/2009
15
FP6 success rates below 20
12/11/2009
16
FP7 success rates above 20 after 90 calls
12/11/2009
17
FP7 success rates below 20 after 90 calls
12/11/2009
18
Participation in FP6 by country
NMS
OMS
12/11/2009
19
FP6 Coordinators
OMS
NMS
12/11/2009
20
Collaboration in FP6 of PL scientists
12/11/2009
21
Collaboration in FP6 of FR scientists
12/11/2009
22
FP7 mobility by MCA-IEF HU scientists go West
12/11/2009
23
FP7 mobility by MCA-IEF IT
scientists go West
12/11/2009
24
Summary of part B

• OMS and NMS brains go West
• Most funds go to OMS, mainly to few of them
• - Some consortia are hermetic
• - Excellence is the major criterium (IP, IDEA)
• - Fewer and weaker SMEs in SLDRs, including NMS
• - Equal rights not equal to equal chances
• General problems
• - too long procedures
• - too much lobbing before calls
• - too much reporting
• - more trust needed between EC and scientists

25
Conclusions of part B - problems with
FPs which

• Disturb balance between cohesion and
  competitiveness policies of EU
• Support collaboration selectively
• Eliminate groups with high potential
• Freeze scientific imbalance in EU
• Disintegrate rather than integrate
• Drain scientists from SLDR, incl. NMS

26
C - means ways to achieve the best outCome

• More REGPOT-like calls (former CoEs) targeted to
  SLDR
• Funds to add SLDR partners to existing consortia
• More smaller IPs and different evaluation
  criteria
• - clear collaboration in the proposals, not only
  excellence
• - towards decrease of scientific and geographic
  imbalance extra points?
• - own contribution from national funds smaller
  than 25
• Support for good basic research without SMEs
• Less bureaucratic, more scientific reporting
  (meetings, joint publications)
• Reverse mobility of researchers go to SLDR,
  i.e. East South!
• - ERC grants to work only in NMS and other SLDR
• - sequential (52 years) MCA mobility grants for
  independent scientists
• - funds for new labs in NMS and other SLDR

27
The vision, ...
the dream, ...

• If we are serious about ERA
• lets stop talking about it,
• but do it, and do it
• with long-term vision!

New Marshall-like plan is needed for science in
NMS and other SLDRs!
28
The end,
happy end!
29
Integrating into ERA


1998-2002


FP7
FP7
2007-2013
2002-2006
Initiation Implementation Full
integration
Newly Associated States
New MS since May 2004
25 MS and 2NMS Jan 2008
30
JK MP points for final discussion

• Are we satisfied with EC programs?
• If not, what can we change?
• - How to make SLDR to be more successful in FPs?
• - How to counteract the brain drain?
• - How to support mobility of independent
  scientists from the West to SLDR?
• - How to ensure integration of ERA?

31
Good, better, best useof EC Framework Programs
J. Kuznicki and M. Powierza
The EU research programs are an unique
opportunity to build the united European Research
Area. It is a good chance to improve research
capacities of Scientifically Less Developed
Regions (SLDR) thanks to collaboration with the
best groups from other EU States. Each of the
Framework Programs brought new solutions to
better use of these funds and to meet the
challenges of the present times. However, to
become the leading innovative force in the world
the EU should use its research programs in the
best possible ways using the full potential of
all EU Member States and in the interest of them.
To achieve this, it is important to identify
major difficulties and obstacles faced by the
SLDR including New Member States (NMS) and to
propose new ways to improve the research
situation in the EU. Particular attention should
be paid to how to increase mobility of
researchers, not from, but to the SLDR and how to
ensure equal chances in the EC programs for all
good European scientists. The change in thinking
about ways of making science in the EU will help
us to better address the challenges of todays
world.
32
FP6 contribution in the UE budget
12/11/2009