Big is not necessarily beautiful, says Greek reaction to ERA/FP6 proposals
Concern over Commission proposals to empower larger research projects forms one of the main elements of Greece's government's preliminary reaction to the European Commission's proposals for a European research area (ERA) and the Sixth Framework programme (FP6). In the paper drawn up by the country's ministry of development, Greece sees the forthcoming European Framework programme as one of the main instruments in creating the ERA and sets out what it feels should be the priorities of both policies. Firstly that they should lead to the improvement of the international competitiveness of European enterprises and secondly, they should provide support of the other EU policies, (such as regional, innovation, environmental policies, etc). The document goes on to explain that it agrees with the concentration of research and resources in targeted and strategic areas, but not to the exclusion of a more generic approach. Strategic areas would have to be decided on the basis of foresight studies and be justified. And they should also eventually be combined with a bottom-up approach, allowing the research to develop according to both needs and researchers' strengths. 'We are against the exclusion from the Sixth framework programme of small projects and the support and promotion exclusively of large size, high threshold projects. The establishment of a high budget threshold of the research projects does not seem to coincide with Greece's interests, not even with those at the EU,' says the paper. It goes on to emphasise that many of the greatest scientific breakthroughs have come from small research teams and that smaller research infrastructures are more flexible than larger ones. European added value and scientific value and excellence should form the basic criteria of evaluating research projects, according to the Greek government. The international and regional dimension of subjects should also be considered rather than 'criteria that give priority to projects funded also by national budgets'. Innovation should form a central pillar in the structuring of both the ERA and FP6, according to the paper. 'The lineal model of innovation development across Europe should be strengthened and promoted substantially through the information society programme and CRAFT type schemes. In total, innovation should constitute one of the key elements in the next Framework programme and the actions attached to the ERA,' says the paper. The paper clearly sets out the measures it would like to see taken to provide greater cohesion in the next Framework programme. These include giving greater internal cohesion of the programmes with strengthened public/private research cooperation, increased innovative clustering and matching supply and demand for research scientists in both the public and private sectors. It would also like to see a diversified funding base for the research infrastructures. In addition to the Member States, Greece mentions the European investment bank, European Structural Funds and private sector funding as appropriate. 'We are not favourable to the idea of the Sixth Framework programme's funds supporting the construction costs for a new infrastructure and the extension of the existing ones or the operational expenses for the existing ones,' says the paper. Researcher mobility is a central theme of the Commission's proposals and Greece welcomes this, agreeing that it should be one of the primary targets of both FP6 and the ERA. It recommends that new actions, such as fellowships and the creation of jobs in research agencies for predetermined periods would help to alleviate the brain drain. It also encourages stimulating more young people to study engineering, science and technology and improve the availability of life long learning facilities. On the European Commission's role, the Greek position endorses the move to simplify further the selection procedures for funding and monitoring projects, but expresses reservations about the externalisation of management activities of the projects. Greece also recommends that the Commission take the central role in defining how joint programmes and coordination of national programmes can take place. Working in collaboration with the Member States, the Commission needs to define a framework for this type of cooperation, ensuring that all Member States can participate and that all information is available from this cooperation. It adds that the coordination can be defined at three levels; programme preparation and objective definition; project drafting and implementation and; exploitation of projects' results 'The mutual openness of all national programmes has not to be the final goal because we should also take into consideration the particular needs of each Member State...the openness of national programmes should take place in areas with a European added value,' says the paper.
Kraje
Greece