Commission comments on research infrastructures and the ERA
Europe will need to take action on coordination, funding and usage guidelines, according to a frank appraisal document on Europe's requirements in research infrastructures published by the European Commission. The working document of the Commission services, entitled 'A European research area for infrastructures' addresses the fact that there are several problems with the existing structure of research infrastructures in Europe. Although there are successful examples, such as CERN and the ESA, there have been no success stories in the last ten years. In addition, there are no coordinated mechanisms to assess what the main needs and priorities are in European research. The present structures are 'very complex and uncertain' and 'disciplinary fragmentation makes it extremely difficult to set priorities among infrastructures serving diverse research communities'. Europe's voice is fragmented on the issue, lacking a single coherent position. Multinational funding agreements are difficult to establish, despite most budgets of key infrastructures being beyond the means of a single country. Distribution of the financial burden is unclear and slow. Even when national infrastructures do exist, transnational access to them is still restricted due to user fees for non-nationals. And these are further hampered by the lack of critical mass. Furthermore, the full potential of electronic communication networks has not been fully exploited. 'European scientific communities across different disciplines are not yet fully aware of the potential benefits of the advanced information and communication technologies, in particular in connection with the new concept of computational Grids,' says the document. The working document provides a series of examples of suggestions to create a European research area through infrastructures. Fragmentation, both geographic and disciplinary, of funding and policy decisions, should give way to greater coordination at European level. This would mean two key changes: firstly that independent scientific advice would underpin infrastructure and; secondly a recognised mechanism to support infrastructure policy decisions should be instituted, taking in all parties involved in decision making and funding issues. The scientific advice should involve pan-European scientific organisations, such as the European science foundation (ESF). These bodies should be able to respond to 'bottom up' requests from researchers. The documents states that 'the European Commission could provide financial resources through the Framework programme to support the scientific advisory bodies.' The mechanism to support policy decisions needs to be as close as possible to the policy decision making process. 'The ideal instrument for a European approach to research infrastructures would be a dedicated 'High level panel on research infrastructures of representatives of Member States and associated states,' says the document. It claims that this would have three main functions: to guarantee mutual and transparent information to all European and national interested parties; to request independent scientific advice where appropriate and; to catalyse the creation of variable geometry associations (who can proceed on their own bases), which should be capable of reaching a joint process of funding. The panel could be assisted in its establishment and autonomous operation of the panel by providing a permanent secretariat. 'It could also provide ad hoc resources through the Framework programme. The document recognises that the development of larger research facilities in Europe will probably remain the responsibility of Member States. It also claims that national authorities could look to get more participation from the private sector that have a direct interest in the exploitation of results from these infrastructures. This type of participation could be encouraged through tax breaks and appropriate schemes for intellectual property rights. The Structural Funds can also help in ensuring that poorer, more peripheral regions are not left behind in the creation of the European research area. The working document recognises that 'research and development is still largely concentrated in the central and most prosperous regions.' The European investment bank (EIB) could also be a valuable source of funds, especially through its 'innovation 2000 initiative, designed to help in a number of sectors related to the knowledge society. Capital contributions from the European Union could also be foreseen for new infrastructures. 'Funding from the Framework programme should be limited to the minimum necessary to catalyse the financial package, leaving the main funding to national sources,' says the document. It also recognises that even once the research infrastructures have been established, they are often not exploited fully because 'non-scientific guidelines' hamper their use, for example by non-national researchers or researchers. Suggestions for improving this situation include increasing the number of 'mutual opening' agreements (the document provides the agreement between the French German and UK authorities to share some oceanographic vessels as a good example). There could and should be an extension of 'in kind' participation from research teams that do not participate financially in the investment towards the infrastructure. Further exploitation of remote access technologies could be a good means of opening up of databases and collections for multiple use, thereby reducing some access budget. There is also a need to raise awareness among the European research communities about the benefits of using advanced tools to perform their tasks. In line with the eEurope 2002 action plan, there should be a spreading of the use of information and communication networks to all scientific disciplines in Europe and supporting improved usage of such networks by research institutes and exploring the potential of virtual institutes and research Grids. The work completed by the Fifth Framework programme is recognised by the working document, highlighting the cooperation networks it stimulated, the thematic areas identifying where infrastructures may receive support through research projects and others. But it also points out that the Framework programme is restrictive in two main areas. 'First, the time-scales and funding level to research infrastructures may require a stability of funding which is not possible under the present actions. Second the new developments can occur quickly and priorities in certain areas of research infrastructures can change requiring a more flexible utilisation of funds.' The best way forward would be to support 'integrated initiatives' combining the existing framework programme funding instruments with the provision of services at the European level, which could last for five to ten years. 'They could be supported by the Framework programme in return for the achievement of a wide-scale but flexible scientific and technological programme of European dimension,' says the document. The document concludes that while a degree of consensus exists about the need to have a more coordinated European approach to its research infrastructures, the working document goes further. 'It is intended to accompany and illuminate the forthcoming proposal for actions in support of research infrastructures in the context of the Sixth Framework programme,' it says.