Results from the ERCs first calls

1
Results from the ERCs first calls Overview of
the collective results. Who are winners and
losers in the Nordic Region? What are the
reasons for the differences? Peter Maassen,
Faculty of Education, University of
Oslo Nordforsk Conference How can the Nordic
countries further improve their success in ERCs
calls? Stockholm, 2 December 2008
2

• History of EU research policy ERC
• Results of first two ERC rounds
• Possible explanations
• Issues

3
EUs research policy (based on Å. Gornitzka,
2008 Muldur et al, 2006) ERC part of EUs
research policy and infrastructure
Traditionally Research funded and organised
within the framework of the nation
state Research not an area where European
nation states will naturally transfer policy
making competencies to European level National
sensitive area
4

• Emerging European research policy
• Initially link between ECs industrial policy and
  technology/science
• Research cooperation intergovernmental
• 1973 DG Research and Education
• Separation industrial policy from research policy
  
• R. Dahrendorfs vision (Commissioner Research)
  European Scientific Area
• However, little European research policy
  coordination in 1970s
• How is any policy coordination possible when even
  in the Member States the planning
• of research projects and programmes remains
  partly uncoordinated? How can there be
• a policy of coordination when the Member States
  are unwilling to commit themselves
• in this respect? (Commission 1977)

5
From chaos to a framework for order The
multi-annual research programme 1984 First
multi-annual research programme (later known as
Framework Programmes) FPs central implementation
instrument for EC research technology
policy Policy layering FPs started with an
economic rationale, but expanded in disciplinary
scope and funding. Objectives attached became
heterogeneous covering economic, ecological,
social and political rationales
6

• Important
• (based on Å. Gornitzka, 2008)
• 1. Member states are involved in decision making
  wrt FPs, but following the
• rules of decision making, the right of initiative
  and setting of the
• research policy agenda promoted through the FP
  instrument is in
• the hands of the European Commission.
• 2. FPs represent move from intergovernmental to
  supranational research policy.
• - FPs significant redistribution of funding
  leaves no guarantees for national research
• systems to have their money back.
• Funding should go to research on predetermined
  topics linked to EUs other
• policy areas.
• FPs managed directly by the Commission, a
  principle that stands in contrast
• to the national level as the main implementers of
  European regulative policies
• in other policy areas.

7

• Important
• 3. Institutionalisation of FPs (incl.
  strengthening legal basis) kept Commission from
• coordinating and integrating national research
  policies.
• 4. Late 1990s EU research policy
  institutionalisation
• Administrative capacity for action in the DG
  research
• Stronger formal legal basis for action and more
  resources to act on
• Organisation of European transnational
  organisations claiming to represent
• the interest of universities
• Decision making structures with national level
  representation that became part
• of the FP machinery.

8
Lisbon 2000 Re-introduction of European
Research Area (ERA) ERA is sea change in
research policy, because it implements the EUs
declared ambition of achieving a genuine common
research policy (Commission 2002) First
ambition of ERA Reforming FPs Innovation in
FP6 Networks of excellence Integrated project
ERA-net promoting intra-European mobility of
researchers
9
Second ambition of ERA vertical research policy
coordination Funding basis of RD joint 3
target of GDP (2002) Targetting the
(malfunctioning) European University EC
communications with Modernization agenda for
Universities (e.g. 2006) Establishment of
European Research Council (ERC) The ERC
represents a considerable institutional
innovation at the European level. It is
significant because it entails changing idea and
principles of research funding in Europe.
10

• Three transformative dimensions of ERC
• Shifts in levels of governance bringing basic
  research policy into the
• heart of EUs research policy, i.e. as a separate
  construction within the FP7.
• The ERC establishment changed the definition of
  what kind of research is a
• legitimate concern at the EU level.
• The ERC represents a break with the established
  principles of criteria
• for European research funding with the
  excellence only principle, no criteria of
• transnationality or even research collaboration,
  but highly selective
• funding given to individual researchers.

11
Nature of ERC as Research Council ERC is EU
agency has consequences for its operations
12
ERC Starting Grant Competition 2007 9167
submitted proposals, Results of evaluation, 430
proposal meeting ERC threshold of excellence 201
proposals on priority list 229 on reserve
list Aim to fund roughly 300
proposals Procedure ERC staff started
negotiations with all 201 candidates on priority
list followed by negotiations with candidates on
reserve list in rank order Results. 1 December
2008 293 contracts agreed or executed
13
ERC Starting Grant Competition 2007 Results Sig
ning of first contracts started in May 2008.
Final results and statistics will be published
after signing of final contract. Expected number
of final contracts at least 297 (ERC press
release 15 May 2008) 1 December 2008 293
contracts agreed or executed final results and
statistics not yet published Among the remaining
contracts to be finalized is one concerning a
candidate at a Nordic university, i.e. NTNU,
Norway. Even though his contract has not been
published on the Cordis website yet, his grant
will be included in the statistics presented
here
14
ERC Starting Grant Competition 2007 Results
country overview
15

• Total Results, country
• ERC starting grant competition 2007 (formal
  situation 1 Dec. 2008)
• Total (294 accepted/executed grants 21 hosting
  countries)
• UK 57 (19.4)
• France 37 (12.6)
• Germany 30 (10.2)
• Italy 26 (8.8)
• Netherlands 25 (8.5)
• Spain 25 (8.5)
• Israel 24 (8.2)
• Switzerland 15 (5.1)
• Belgium 11 (3.8)
• Sweden 10 (3.4)
• Finland 7 (2.4)
• 13. DK 4 (1.4)
• 19. Norway 1 (0.3)

16

• Geographical concentration of grants
• 7 countries host more than 75 of all grant
  holders
• Concentration largest in social and human
  sciences
• 2 countries host almost 50 of all grant holders
• Concentration smallest in biological and life
  sciences
• Nordic countries
• relative to size, number of researchers and
  research investments,
• Finland is performing best, Norway weakest
• 17 male grant holders 4 female (1 unknown)

17
ERC Starting Grant Competition 2007 Results
institutional overview
18
Total Results, institution HEIs (114
institutions 188 grants, 64 of total
294) 1. University of Cambridge (UK) 8
(2.7) 2. Technion, Israel Institute of
Technology 7 3. Hebrew University of Jeruzalem
(Israel) 6 Imperial College London
(UK) 6 5. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
(NL) 5 University College London
(UK) 5 University of Oxford (UK) 5 8. KU
Leuven (Be) 4 University of Heidelberg
(Germ.) 4 10. 6 HEIs 3 incl. Stockholm
University (Swe) Aarhus University (DK) 17. 23
HEIs 2 incl. University of Helsinki,
University of Jyvaskyla (Fi.) 40. 74 HEIs
1 incl. Goteborgs University, Karolinska
Institutet, Uppsala University, Lund University,
KTH Stockholm, Chalmers Univ of Technology Umea
University, TU Helsinki, University of
Copenhagen, NTNU
19

• - Limited institutional concentration of starting
  grants
• Top 9 universities 4 UK, 2 Israel, 1
  Netherlands 1 Be., 1 Germ.
• Overall of grant holders at HEIs 65.6
• Social and human sciences at HEIs 91
• Physical sciences, engineering, etc. 70.5
• Biological and Life Sciences at HEIs 49
• - Nordic countries
• Concentration of grants in HEIs overall 14
  Nordic HEIs host (until
• now) in total 22 starting grant holders
• 2 with 3 (1 DK, 1 Sweden), 2 with 2 (Finland),
  and 9 with
• 1 grant holder (7 Sweden, 1 Finland, 1 DK, 1 No)
• 2 grant holders in Finland outside
  HE-organisations,
• 1 at VTT and 1 at Finnish Meteorological
  Institute
• Nordic countries weakest in social and human
  sciences (around 5 )

20

• Contract size Nordic HEIs and non-university
  organisations
• in starting grants competition 2007
• Sweden, total 11,308,158 (ranging from
  1,689,000 to 500,000)
• Finland, total 8,232,967 (ranging from
  1,622,360 to 699,985)
• Denmark, total 4,444,460 (ranging from
  1,499,810 to 749,571)
• (Norway, expected around 1.5 million)
• Total 23,985,585 (excl. Norwegian grant)

21
ERC Advanced Grant Competition 2008 2167
admitted proposals, 275 grants aimed at
(12.6) Results of evaluation 275 successful
proposals 19 on reserve list Aim to fund
(around) 275 proposals Procedure ERC staff
started negotiations with all 275 candidates if
necessary negotiations will follow with
candidates on reserve list Results. 1 December
2008 36 contracts agreed or executed (incl. two
Swedish grant holders at resp. Lund University
and KTH)
22
ERC Advanced Grant Competition 2008 Results
country overview Statistics presented here are
results of evaluation, not of the Contract
negotiations
23

• Total Results, country
• ERC advanced grants competition 2008
• ( 275 grant negotiations 23 hosting countries)
• Starting grants competition Advanced grants
  competition
• UK 57 (19.5) 1. UK 59 (21.4)
• France 37 (12.6) 2. France 35 (12.7)
• Germany 30 (10.2) 3. Switzerland 28 (10.2)
• Italy 26 (8.9) 4. Germany 26 (9.4)
• Netherlands 25 (8.5) 5. Italy 20 (7.2)
• Spain 25 (8.5) 6. Netherlands 19 (6.9)
• Israel 24 (8.2) 7. Sweden 16 (5.8)
• Switzerland 15 (5.1) 8. Israel 15 (5.5)
• Belgium 11 (3.8) 9. Spain 13 (4.7)
• Sweden 10 (3.4) 10. Finland 9 (3.3)
• Finland 7 (2.4) 13. Denmark 4 (1.5)
• 13. DK 4 (1.4) 16. Norway 2 (0.7)
• 18. Iceland 1 (0.4)

24

• Major pattern of distribution comparable to first
  round
• Geographical concentration of grants
• 4 countries host more than 50 of all grant
  holders
• Concentration slightly less in social and human
  sciences
• Largest in Interdisciplinary research
• Concentration growth in Life sciences
• Small reserve list of 19 proposals, incl. 2 from
  Finland,
• 2 from Norway and 1 from Sweden
• Nordic countries, overall better performance
• Finland and Sweden improved considerably,
• Denmark remained stable, Norway will have (at
  least) 2 grants
• and Iceland was added with 1 grant

25
ERC Advanced Grant Competition 2008 Results
institutional overview
26

• Total Results Advanced Grants 2008, institution
• HEIs (109 HEIs 204 grants, 74.2 of total 275)
• 1. Ecole Polytechnique Fed. Lausanne (Swi) 11
  (4)
• 2. ETH Zurich (Swi) 7
• Imperial College London (UK) 7
• University of Oxford (UK) 7
• University of Helsinki (Fi) 5
• University of Cambridge (UK) 5
• University of Edinburgh (UK) 5
• KU Nijmegen (NL) 4
• University of Geneva (Swi) 4
• University College London (UK) 4
• University of Utrecht (NL) 4
• KHT-Royal Institute of Technology (Swe) 4
• 7 HEIs 3
• incl. Lund University, Karolinska Institutet
  (Swe)
• 25 HEIs 2
• incl. University of Aarhus, University of
  Copenhagen (DK)

27

• - Limited institutional concentration of starting
  grants
• Top 12 universities 5 UK, 3 Switzerland, 2
  Netherlands
• 1 Finland, 1 Sweden
• Overall of grant holders at HEIs 74.2
• Social and human sciences at HEIs 87
• Physical sciences, engineering, etc. 77
• Biological and Life Sciences at HEIs 63
• Interdisciplinary research at HEIs 76
• - Nordic countries
• Concentration of grants in HEIs overall 15
  Nordic HEIs are
• expected to host 30 advanced grant holders
• 2 grant holder in Finland outside
  HE-organisations,
• incl. 1 at Finnish Meteorological Institute

28

• Total Results ERC first 2 rounds, country
• ERC starting and advanced grants competition
  2007, 2008
• ( 567 grants 24 hosting countries)
• Total 2007/2008
• UK 116 (20.5)
• France 72 (12.7)
• Germany 56 (9.9)
• Italy 46 (8.1)
• Netherlands 44 (7.8)
• Switzerland 43 (7.6)
• Israel 39 (6.9)
• Spain 38 (6.7)
• Sweden 26 (4.6)
• Finland 16 (2.8)
• Belgium 16 (2.8)
• 13. Hungary 10 (1.8)
• 15. DK 8 (1.2)

29
Total Results ERC first 2 rounds,
institution HEIs (160 HEIs 402 grants, of total
567, 70) 1. University of Cambridge (UK) 13
(2.4) Imperial College London (UK) 13 3. Ecole
Polytechnique Fed. Lausanne (Swi) 12 University
of Oxford (UK) 12 5. ETH Zurich
(Swi) 10 6. University College London (UK)
9 Hebrew University Jeruzalem (Isr)
9 9. Technion-Israel Institute of Technology
8 10. University of Helsinki (Fi)
7 University of Utrecht (NL) 7 Vrije
Universiteit Amsterdam (NL) 7 University of
Edinburgh (UK) 7 14. KU Leuven (Bel) 6 KU
Nijmegen (NL) 6 Universiteit Heidelberg
(Germ) 6 University of Tel Aviv (Isr )
6 18. 6 HEIs 5 incl. KTH, Stockholm
University, Aarhus University Top 24 168
grants, 29.8 of total
30

• Total Results ERC first 2 rounds, Nordic HEIs
• (18 HEIs, 50 grants, 8.7 4 grants at 3 non-HE
  institutions in Finland)
• HEIs
• University of Helsinki (Fi) 7
• KTH-Royal Institute of Technology (Swe) 5
• Stockholm University (Swe) 5
• University of Aarhus (DK) 5
• 4. Karolinska Institutet (Swe) 4
• Lund University (Swe) 4
• Chalmers University of Technology (Swe) 3
• University of Copenhagen (DK) 3
• Helsinki University of Technology (Fi) 2
• University of Jyvaskyla (Fi) 2
• Uppsala University (Swe) 2
• NTNU (No) 2
• Linkoping University (Swe) 1
• University of Tampere (Fi) 1
• University of Tromsø (No) 1

31
Possible explanations of lack of
success Rational perspective Lack of
quality? Lack of interest? Lack of
information? Lack of understanding? Lack of
support?
32
Possible explanations of lack of
success Instrumental perspective ERC EU
agency/instrument ERCs procedures based on
specific choices (peer review themes)
33
Important Institutional role in application
procedure. Most successful HEIs have an active
policy for identifying, stimulating and
supporting possible ERC award candidates.
34
Issues How does ERC relate to dynamics in HE
Research overall? Innovation policy, user
orientation, EIT? Possibility to take grant to
other country (soccer!) How important is ERC? Is
this what we want, small amount beginning of
transfer of basic research funds to European
level? End of ESF? E.g. ERC means in practice
the end of the EURYI (European Young Researchers
Award) programme for which the ESF was
responsible.
35
Three future options 1. Will ERC gradually
undermine principles of funding underlying the
rest of the FP? 2. Will the established practices
of the FP and the DG research over time invade
the newcomer and reduce the foreseen autonomy of
the ERC? 3. Will the different elements of the EU
research policy manage to live parallel,
sustainable lives without the one displacing the
other?
36
The end