Position Paper of Iberian universities The mid-term review of Horizon 2020 and the design of FP9 Introduction Horizon 2020 (H2020), the Framework Programme for research and innovation of the European Union, is the main instrument for funding research activities, technological development and innovation in Europe, with a budget of 74.828 million euros for the period 2014-2020. According to provisional results available, the Spanish and Portuguese entities have so far obtained almost roughly half the amount (after 2 years) of the budget they received during the duration of FP7. Though these may reflect positive news we still believe that the correspondent amounts have been received just by a defined group of researchers and most of our research groups continue not to be able to have successful results. Concerning grants awarded, Spain assume provisionally the fourth position in the ranking of countries, with a return of 9,7% in the EU-28, behind Germany, Britain and France, therefore the results can be considered excellent, since they exceed the results achieved in the whole Seventh Framework Programme (8,3% UE 28), as well as the ambitious targets set for the entire H2020. Aware of its importance, the Spanish universities have significantly increased their participation in H2020 compared with FP7, but its success rate is lower, since many of H2020 programs are outside its traditional strengths. So far, the Spanish universities have achieved 19.7% of the total return to their country. In the case of Portugal and according to the available data (GPPQ) or for ID&I the evaluation of Portuguese participation on H2020 is quite positive and better then in FP7. Portuguese success rate was around 12,84% (slightly above the UE medium value, which was around 12,43%). Portugal has so far been able to receive more than 300 million, from which Universities and Research Centres have been responsible for around 50%. Participation is however unevenly distributed among scientific areas (or pillars) of H2020. Society has been one of the less successful pillars. Hence, reinforcement of participation in some pillars seems demanding, since increased participation is still not as effective as we would desire. Leadership as well. Usually Portuguese research groups are simply part of the team but in less common cases assume the leadership of the funded projects. 1
Crue Universidades Españolas (Crue) and CRUP (Conselho de Reitores das Universidades Portuguesas) wish to contribute to the mid-term review of Horizon 2020 and to the design of the 9th EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. This document describes the joint position of the 76 Spanish universities that make up Crue, as well as the 15 Portuguese Universities included in CRUP, based both on their own experiences during the development of the program, as well as on the collection by different methods of suggestions for future improvement of the Framework Programme. Specific suggestions For an analysis and discussion the following points are raised: 1. Projects Top excellence science should be the core of the three pillars of H2020, complemented with initiatives to improve conditions for innovation and public and private sector collaboration. H2020 is creating a gap between the non-oriented fundamental research (basic research), funded by the European Research Council (ERC), and innovation, which is financed through social challenges and industrial leadership. Therefore, more funding should be allocated for collaborative projects at lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRL). More often big projects with high TRL are mainly applied and developed by big companies (with or without Universities). This excludes or reduces the chances to have successful proposals, especially in member states in which technology is not so developed and/or big companies are not so present and established, creating an ex-ante discriminatory assessment. An evaluation should be made of the benefits obtained by the companies funding in H2020. Maintaining (or increasing) funding of BIG projects in FP9 will deepen European inequalities. The recently developed policy of changing grants into loans (or giving loans a higher role - clearly related to the previous paragraph), should be avoided (if not excluded) since it is definitely a negative policy towards the less developed countries which might lead them be out of the game. FP9 should overcome this difficulty or at least not let them hamper the participation of every country. Competition is higher than ever. Many excellent proposals, normally involving a substantial burden of paper work and always quite time consuming are not getting funding (eg, FET OPEN programme). Research groups start wondering if their efforts are worth. If we want 2
to stop brain drain, or increase brain exchange, more investment should be made in research in the next European MFF. Generalization of the two-steps evaluation procedure should be considered. This method can make calls more attractive, since administrative burden will be reduced and evaluation could also be delivered in less time. However the success rate is low: more proposals for the same call generally mean more rejected projects. But pre-proposal evaluation if properly done can help network consolidations. Evaluation should then be able to recommend that similar proposals could be merged (this could mean a scaling factor for the next step) in order to avoid dispersion of funds, consolidating human resources and outcomes. This could also mean a different way of distributing funds. Budget redistribution should be mandatory in such cases. Development of Analytical Instrumentation is very fast and improvements are continuous. For some scientific areas, equipment renewing and maintenance is too demanding. There should be a call specially devoted to Infrastructures, technical human resources, and maintenance. Not big infrastructures but small modernization of labs (or some calls should consider these items as eligible, or at least consider them as indirect costs). 2. Science and Technology vs Social Sciences Much effort has been done to strengthen the integration of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH), making it a cross-cutting issue in Horizon 2020. This has not been enough. Not only it has proven to be difficult to integrate SSH in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) domain but also SSH still need better instruments to be developed. The SSH disciplines are not yet enough represented in H2020 projects. With no "specific societal challenge" and no "specific evaluation criteria", the inclusion of SSH in projects is a little more than "good intentions". The situation is particularly serious if we consider that some of the most pressing problems of the EU (immigration, refugees, national identity, values, citizens etc.) need a methodological research more conceptually focused on SSH. A specific pillar for social science seems definitely needed. For all that has been said before but also because Europe is undergoing a difficult phase. We need to develop S&T but we definitely need to pay special care to people and citizens. 3. Impact Impact is considered the main weakness of the proposals developed by university researchers. Impact is not easy to assess and usually has been too bureaucratically evaluated producing incorrect results. 3
It is therefore necessary to better asses this point and not reject proposals that are excellent, since in many cases is rather a matter of form than of substance. It should also be considered (not strictly) the need to follow some major lines of research. It is difficult to accomplish a regulation but probably the time has come to promote this discussion (even if not for the next program): what are in fact the main (basic) areas Europe should focus on? Exploitation and market orientation have become the real challenge for Pilar 2 and 3 of the Framework Programme. It seems fundamental research, the basis to applied research and technology transfer, is no longer a need. Obviously this does not correspond to the real situation, though new instruments should be designed to facilitate public-private rapprochement and a clear reward of fundamental and applied research. It is clear that some universities are focused on basic research, others not so much. There should be calls focused on high TRL as well as others more focused on RIA (Research and Innovation Actions) project s scheme, with lower TRLs. 4. Evaluation The evaluation process should be more transparent in general. In many cases, the information received does not highlight the weaknesses of the proposals, making it difficult to introduce future enhancements. In other situations there is also a contradiction between evaluators that the Commission must resolve before the feedback given in the Evaluation Summary Report received by the applicant. The quality of the evaluator s feedback regarding H2020 proposals is quite different in comparison with FP7 due to the non-negotiation approach. Hence, the negotiation approach should, in some cases, be reintroduced. Under H2020, in most cases there is no room for mistakes. Evaluators usually do not offer suggestions for improvement in the evaluation, if the proposal has some weaknesses is simply not funded. The result is that sometimes proposals with a high scientific quality may remain unfunded. In short, not only evaluation committee selection has to be based in wider criteria, more rigorous but also more rotation is needed if rotation is not regular. Ethics should as well be quite strict. New methods for evaluation panels are probably needed. Europe has grown a lot in the last years and opportunities should be open to young researchers from widespread locations. Researchers come into the idea that it is not science that is evaluated but in fact it is the use of specific words or the definition of specific objectives. 4
5. Horizon 2020 vs. Structural funds Synergies of Horizon 2020 and the Structural Funds should also be revised. RIS3 funds may cover activities not funded by H2020 (infrastructures, networks, international project offices, etc.) in the most important fields for the region, besides regions develop (hopefully) during a 7 years period. It is a clear mistake not to review RIS3 strategies and their links to the PO of each country (nor the countries nor the regions nor researchers stand still for 7 years). The ex-ante conditionality of RIS3 strategies cannot be so strict. Some room has to be made for new challenges and opportunities. It must be ensured that the structural funds managed by the individual countries result in an increase of funding for the regions objective 1 versus other regions. Besides the national and regional strategies for smart specialization innovation consist of integrated territorial economic transformation agendas. Since the strategy is based on a vision of economic development, a potential disadvantage is that some areas are not considered strategic for the region and remain unfunded. There are, therefore, some areas of knowledge also important to the region not by the economic benefits they generate. However they have other benefits with social or cultural impact on the welfare of citizens. It is necessary to take into consideration this imbalance. Structural funds play a valid and important role in supporting the research and innovation capacity in Member states. This means that a far greater share of funds should be channelled towards dedicated capacity building in research and innovation. 6. European Innovation Council (EIC) The idea of establishing an EIC to support research-driven innovation is still under development and as such there are plenty of roles that such a council could take on. It is very important that the set-up of a new body includes simple procedures and transparent decision-making procedures as well as university and business representation in the governing council. Careful consideration should be given to the existence of current innovation support in EU and member states in order to avoid duplication of current initiatives. Council activities should build-up on excellent science with a focus on researchdriven innovation projects, including bottom-up initiatives and cross-disciplinary research with the possibility to deliver breakthrough innovations. This demands attention to all stages in the knowledge chain, but with a special focus on activities taking place at TRLs 4-6. 5
7. Stronger Universities Universities in Portugal and Spain hold the core of research and the highest % of researchers. The whole of the programs are usually designed to enhance excellent research forgetting that this excellent research is often based at the universities. Competition is not fair to start with, and there in not a clear financial scheme taking care of maintaining the critical mass of good research needed to generate excellence. Europe has gone (or is going) through an economic crisis that affects different member states with different intensity and Universities also suffer from theses crisis. There should be programs specially designed to smooth these discrepancies. DG EAC and DG RTD should then work together on this. An example is the portability of ERC (European Research Council) grants. If it is true that researchers should be free to work where they find better conditions the truth is that the University who supported the research, until the applications, ends up with nothing except the loss of an excellent researcher. 6