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

I Pre-history 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’ ‘Basic’ (later: ‘frontier’) research research Achieved Cooperation, mobility Competition through Added Trans-national Scientific excellence value collaboration

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

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

II Funding à la ERC 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!

III A Policy Instrument 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 Funding à la ERC 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