The European Research Council Thomas Knig I. Pre-history II. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The European Research Council

Thomas König

I. Pre-history

• II. Funding à la ERC
• III. ERC, a policy instrument

Historical excurse

▶ 2000: Lisbon Strategy, “to make Europe the most competitive and the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world” ▶ 2000: European Research Area (ERA): “the situation concerning research is worrying” Why such stark contrast?

I Pre-history

“The Miracle of the ERC” (Fotis Kafatos)

2000-3: ERC Campaign 2003-5: European Commission takes over 2005-7: Developing ERC “scientific strategy”

I Pre-history

2000-3: The ERC Campaign

A group of self-organized high-level researchers with common ideological convictions: ▶ Strong emphasis on “European” research ▶ Critical of EU Framework Programme (“Loch Ness Monsters”) ▶ Fear of academic research missing out on increased R&D spending

I Pre-history

2003-5: Political campaign ERC

Traditional rationale Complementary (ERC) rationale Targeting ‘Pre-competitive’ research ‘Basic’ (later: ‘frontier’) research Achieved through Cooperation, mobility Competition Added value Trans-national collaboration Scientific excellence

I Pre-history

2005-7: Developing ERC “scientific strategy”

Core features: ▶ two funding streams (“keep it simple”) ▶ Bottom-up (“Excellence only”) ▶ Funding only PIs (”individual teams”) Core feature: peer review

I Pre-history

Peer Review

To legitimize a decision! Two misunderstandings about peer review: ▶ Principle vs. procedure ▶ Publishing vs. funding; in the latter, features to look for:

▶ Quality ▶ Promise ▶ Feasibility

II Funding à la ERC

ERC, a funding machinery

II Funding à la ERC

3.4% 13.9% 12.5% 14.9% 12.6% 11.7% 9.5% 11.8% 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 € 0 € 200 € 400 € 600 € 800 € 1.000 € 1.200 € 1.400 € 1.600 € 1.800 € 2.000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Millionen

Inconsistencies of peer review

Implicit expectations: ▶ Only ambition is to advance science ▶ Reviewers are open to new avenues ▶ Reviewers and applicants do this for free But actually: reality is different!

II Funding à la ERC

ERC dealing with those inconsistencies

▶ Robust basic set-up

▶ Interdisciplinary, international panels ▶ Hand-picked panel members

▶ Orchestration of procedural fine-prints

▶ Refine rules and guidelines ▶ Pro-active PR of “good intentions”

▶ Scientific Council is closely observing!

II Funding à la ERC

What is the ERC?

▶ Currently part of 8th FP edition (“Horizon 2020”) ▶ Mission to fund “frontier” (i.e., academic) research ▶ 17 % of EU FP budget, > 1 % of total EU R&D spending ▶ Three future challenges

III A Policy Instrument

Organizational challenge

As a political compromise, ERC is not independent agency but compound of three legal entities: ▶ Independent steering body ▶ Executive Agency ▶ Specific Programme

III A Policy Instrument

Conflicting objectives

Tasks: 1) identify best applications (”excellence only”) 2) pay out money along EU financial regulations

III A Policy Instrument

Repercussions of effects

▶ ERC grant decision for tenure? ▶ Correction of ERC grants distribution?

III A Policy Instrument

Whom does the ERC belong to?

“The ERC has been a unique and bold experiment to put the scientific community in charge. It must safeguard this position.” (Helga Nowotny, Science, 10 March 2017)

III A Policy Instrument

Why is ERC unique?

▶ Not because of its philosophy, ▶ Not because of its funding streams, ▶ Not because of its decision-making principle, But: ▶ Funding is transnational (visibility) ▶ Reviewers are international (avoids informal networks) ▶ Panels are interdisciplinary ▶ Procedure is sophisticated/expensive

III Funding à la ERC