(From 2002 until 2005, this mailing list was called the ECCR mailing list)
[Previous message][Next message][Back to index]
[eccr] Mid-term evaluation of FP6 instruments
Wed Jul 07 18:27:12 GMT 2004
>Mid-term evaluation of FP6 instruments praises ambition, but sees room for
>improvement on implementation
>
>Date : 2004-07-05
>
>General Information :
> Ramon Marimon, Spanish Secretary of State between 2000 and 2002 and
> chair of a high level expert panel charged with carrying
> out a
> mid-term evaluation of the new instruments introduced for
> the Sixth
> Framework Programme (FP6) , presented the panel's
> findings to the
> informal Competitiveness Council on 3 July. The report
> contains a
> number of recommendations on the Integrated Projects and
> Networks
> of Excellence, some of which can be implemented in FP6,
> and some of
> which should be introduced in FP7, Dr Marimon told CORDIS
> News.
>
> As highlighted in the report, the scientific community
> had high
> expectations of FP6, and in particular the new
> instruments. As
> these expectations have been only partially fulfilled,
> sections of
> the report appear rather negative. However, as emphasised
> by Dr
> Marimon, participants in the study were generally very
> positive
> about the new instruments in terms of their objectives
> and ambition.
> 'The criticisms focus more on implementation and perceptions
> regarding size.'
>
> 'The most important insight to come out of the study is
> that we
> must get more in line with what the scientific community
> is willing
> and able to do,' said Dr Marimon.
>
> The 12 recommendations drafted by Dr Marimon's panel
> cover a wide
> range of issues, including clarification of the
> instruments' goals,
> increased flexibility for participants, critical mass, the
> difference between Integrated Projects and STREPs (specific
> targeted research projects) , support for innovative
> research
> groups, small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and
> project
> evaluation.
>
> Two of the principal concerns of those who participated
> in the
> study are the costs involved in submitting a proposal, and
> perceptions regarding how large a project consortium need be.
>
> 'It is a common misconception that the New Instruments
> should be
> very large,' states the report's executive summary.
> ''Critical
> mass' depends on the topic, the thematic area, the
> participants and
> the potential impact and added value. The concept of 'one
> size fits
> all' should not be applied across all thematic areas and
> Instruments.'
>
> This was a point echoed by Achilleas Mitsos,
> Director-General of
> the Commission's Research DG, when he spoke to CORDIS
> News on 1
> July: 'The distinctive characteristic of each instrument
> is not its
> size. It is its scope,' said Dr Mitsos. 'Networks of
> Excellence,
> Integrated Projects and STREPs have different objectives.
> They have
> different raisons d'être. So it is the scope that leads
> to the
> definition of the instrument and not the size. We don't
> want big
> things [...] . To give you an example of what I am trying
> to say,
> we must be able to have a STREP, for example, that is
> bigger in
> size than an Integrated Project.'
>
> Referring specifically to the Networks of Excellence, Dr
> Mitsos
> added that the Commission's 'good intentions to have
> something
> simple' - basing funding calculations on the number of
> researchers
> involved and the type of research - 'has led people,
> along with
> this insistence on size and big things, to think that
> they must
> come with huge proposals with too many researchers and
> laboratories
> and much less integration. You can integrate two or three
> or five,
> but you can much less integrate 50 or 70 laboratories.'
>
> Dr Mitsos emphasised, however, that the Commission has
> already
> improved things in this regard. 'The second call was much
> clearer
> and the opposition much less,' said Dr Mitsos. 'It's
> mainly our
> fault,' he added. 'When you write something and the
> reader reads it
> differently, it's never the fault of the person who is
> reading it.'
>
> The mid-term evaluation report also raises the concern that
> prescribing certain instruments to certain calls is
> encouraging
> some consortia to adapt their proposals so that they have
> what they
> perceive to be a higher chance of receiving funding. 'People
> distort what they want to do in order to get approval,'
> Dr Marimon
> told CORDIS News. He therefore recommends that researchers
> themselves select the instrument that is most appropriate
> for their
> research goals.
>
> 'The European Commission should specify the portfolio of
> Instruments available and the strategic objectives.
> Participants
> should define the specific research objective they will
> pursue and
> why this can best be met by the Instrument they have
> chosen,'
> states Recommendation 3 in the report. 'We should give
> more voice
> and weight to the participants,' added Dr Marimon.
>
> The panel found the costs and risks of participation in
> FP6 to be
> 'unreasonably high'. For this reason, the members propose
> implementing a two-step evaluation procedure. This would
> involve
> potential participants first submitting a short proposal,
> which
> would be evaluated according to a limited set of criteria
> including
> adequacy and excellence. 'Once they know they have a
> chance of
> being funded, then they can put things in detail and
> invest more in
> the proposal,' Dr Marimon told CORDIS News.
>
> For now, the work of Dr Marimon and his fellow panel
> members is
> done. Their mandate of evaluating the effectiveness of
> the new
> instruments, as requested by the European Parliament and the
> Council during the negotiations on FP6, has been
> completed. 'I
> think our honest work has been welcomed,' said Dr
> Marimon. He is
> pleased with the result, which he says is a report based
> on more
> than just opinions. 'We really got the findings,' he said.
>
> He now awaits an official response to his work from the
> Commission,
> the content of which will dictate whether or not the
> panel needs to
> draft a reply. On the Commission's part, 'follow-up does
> require a
> change in procedures,' concluded Dr Marimon. Judging by the
> comments of Dr Mitsos, who used the phrase 'continuation
> without
> dogma' to refer to the Commission's intention to address the
> report's criticisms and make changes where appropriate,
> procedures
> are already being reassessed.
>
>Data Source Provider : CORDIS News interview with Ramon Marimon
>Document Reference : Based on a CORDIS News interview with Ramon Marimon
>Programme Acronym : FRAMEWORK 6C, ERA
>Subject Index Codes : Scientific Research, Coordination, Cooperation, Policies
>Contact Person : For further information on the review, please visit:
> http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/instruments_review
>Related News : 21173
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Carpentier Nico (Phd)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Katholieke Universiteit Brussel - Catholic University of Brussels
Vrijheidslaan 17 - B-1081 Brussel - Belgium
T: ++ 32 (0)2-412.42.78
F: ++ 32 (0)2/412.42.00
Office: 4/0/18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vrije Universiteit Brussel - Free University of Brussels
Centre for Media Sociology (CeMeSO)
Pleinlaan 2 - B-1050 Brussels - Belgium
T: ++ 32 (0)2-629.18.30
F: ++ 32 (0)2-629.28.61
Office: C0.05
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
European Consortium for Communication Research
Web: http://www.eccr.info
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: (Nico.Carpentier /at/ kubrussel.ac.be)
Web: http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~ncarpent/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Previous message][Next message][Back to index]
