With some 73 billion euros in research funding up for grabs between 2007 and 2013 in the European Commissions 7th Five Year Plan for Research, or Framework Program as it is also known, some frantic lobbying and jockeying for position is going on. All credit to the Commission for making this relatively open and transparent, with plenty of information on the ongoing process.
During a recent meeting addressing the environmental and sustainability aspects of the program, a number of names familiar to European nanotech watchers popped, up, most notably, Hans Josef Fell, a Green MP in the German government, and Doug Parr, Chief Scientist with Greenpeace UK. This is indicative in a general shift in European research policy, that its not just a question of giving money to a bunch of people to potter around doing science, but that we also have to look at how research can help Europe become more competitive, and also have a positive effect on an aging society.
Balancing these issues of pure versus applied research and competitiveness versus sustainability, is enough to have most policy makers in DG Research reaching for the aspirins, and that is before getting the proposals through a truculent parliament and budget hacking national governments.
Doug Parr does raise a question we have been pondering for a while, that of the vary nature of funding research.
‘It starts with the technologies and not the issues,’ he said. He gave the examples of information and communication technologies and nanotechnology. Each of these themes is included as a research priority, but according to Dr Parr, they are regarded as ends in themselves. These technologies should instead be used to address problems, he said.
In the world in which Cientifica operates, we have very few clients these days who want to know all about nanotechnology but an ever increasing number of corporations and governments who want to know about nanotechnologies applied to… Could this be a model for European research funding? Rather than dividing funding among the various disciplines, perhaps a market based or even US style grand challenges may be a better solution?
While we do not expect much change to the current funding proposals and mechanisms, perhaps this might make the agenda for the eighth five year plan.