Skip to main content

The European Union and fundamental research

The European Commission (EC) has sought feedback from the research community base in the form of a survey for its Horizon Europe research plan. It can be found in
 
 
The overall strategy is already decided, in terms of basic themes etc, and the questions in the survey are already quite specific. Here is a general comment on EU research as funded by the EC. It relates to fundamental research as opposed to directed or applied. 

The framework programs (as all EC endeavors) are meant to complement national efforts and not duplicate them (as a fundamental mandate of relevant treaties). Blue-skies fundamental research is left for national programs, and  is therefore not EC funded, except for the Marie Curie program with the training and mobility argument, and the European Research Council (ERC) with the excellence argument. The latter is essentially an award program, which funds (very generously) a very small number of people, around 1000 grants per year for a community of around 2 million FTE researchers. Most of the thrust of the Horizon programs is for directed research. 

A key problem of research in Europe is its the HETEROGENEITY OF THE NATIONAL PROGRAMS which severely affects European research. If the EC is serious about its research ambitions, this problem should be addressed, clearly and directly. As we have it, the only talent in fundamental research that can flourish is the one in countries with good and well-funded programs (very few). Poorer countries cannot afford a healthy balance between fundamental and directed research. A goal of the EC should be that good fundamental researchers in the EU have same chances of developing their potential irrespective of country within the EU. It is a structural flaw that has been perverting European research since its beginning. It should be at least confronted.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Phys. Rev. X Quantum

It is a new journal that has been recently announced by the American Physical Society (APS). It is introduced as " a highly selective, open access journal featuring quantum information science and technology research with an emphasis on lasting and profound impact." But why? Both Phys. Rev. Research and Phys. Rev. X perfectly cover the remit. It is very disappointing that APS now decides still to play the game of new journals for new trendy topics. I welcomed Phys. Rev. Research  as a step in the right direction ( see previous post ) . I am afraid Phys. Rev. X Quantum goes in the wrong direction, both as a new topical journal and as a highly selective one. My reasons for this are presented in an earlier post . Sadly, APS is following the path defined by others, in a competition among publishers that does not serve the community, and in which it has few chances to maintain (regain?) leadership.  Of course, I have absolutely nothing against the Quantum community, whatever i
Post a Comment
Read more

Research antiefficiency principle

It is an intriguing thought (and admittedly a provocative way to put it). University funding in the USA, UK and other research-powerful countries is partly based on grant overheads. That is, funds payed by research agencies to the research institutions, beyond the direct costs of the research itself, to cover for a proportional part of the costs of running the institutions themselves. Sensible. Overheads do represent a significant part of institutional income. It makes sense in many ways, but, in essence, it leads to the antiefficiency principle: Since overheads scale with the direct research costs, universities and research institutions, more or less directly, tell their research staff: "do your best, for as much money as possible". The title of this post is provocative because the quoted statement above is not as antiefficient as it sounds. "Do something for as much money as possible" would be antiefficient, but the actual statement implies two maxmisations, &
Post a Comment
Read more