[eccr] Mid-term evaluation of FP6 instruments

>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/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------