UNIVERSITIES UK S VISION FOR THE NEXT EU RESEARCH AND INNOVATION FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME MARCH 2018 Contact: Peter Mason Policy Manager, EU Research and Innovation peter.mason@international.ac.uk Audience: Research managers, UK and European policymakers, research funders, and UK and EU research and innovation sector stakeholders Executive Summary This position paper has been developed for submission to the European Commission s public consultation on EU funds in the area of investment, research and innovation, small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and the single market. The paper outlines what Universities UK (UUK) sees as the added value of the Framework Programmes and what the overarching objectives should be. It also presents eight areas that UUK believes the next Framework Programme can improve upon Horizon 2020 to maximise the benefits of EU research and innovation funding.
INTRODUCTION The EU Research and Innovation Framework Programmes are highly valued by the UK university sector. By providing funding for research and innovation activity, Horizon 2020 and its predecessors have helped researchers at UK institutions to develop new international collaboration partnerships and enhance their capacity to tackle global challenges. This is why Universities UK (UUK) has taken the position that the UK should seek to continue to participate fully in the Framework Programmes after the UK has left the EU. In line with this ambition, UUK is keen to feed into the development of the successor programme to Horizon 2020, which is due to start in 2021. To this end, this position paper has been developed for submission to the European Commission s public consultation on EU funds in the area of investment, research and innovation, small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and the single market. The paper starts by outlining what UUK sees as the added value of the Framework Programmes and what its overarching objectives should be, and then presents eight areas in which UUK believes that the next Framework Programme can improve upon Horizon 2020 to maximise the benefits of EU research and innovation funding. These are: Budgeting for excellence Fostering distributed excellence across the continent Capitalising on global collaboration opportunities Enhancing impact and incorporating arts, humanities and social sciences Continue to make FP9 more accessible Reinforcing the knowledge triangle A diverse and inclusive FP9 Driving forward the Open Science agenda. Universities UK has developed this position through extensive consultation with its membership and other key stakeholders. This has included, but is not limited to, a survey of the UUK membership in late summer 2017 which attracted nearly 70 responses and discussions with EU research funding managers (including a joint UUKi-UK Research Office workshop in October 2017 and the Universities UK International Europe Network) and with other European university sector representative organisations. The priorities identified have been agreed by the UUK Board and the development of the paper has been overseen by the chairs of the UUK International and Research Policy Networks. We are grateful to everyone who has contributed their views. 2
WHAT IS THE ADDED VALUE OF THE EU RESEARCH AND INNOVATION FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES? Although the funding received by UK universities is substantial 1, the added value of the EU research and innovation programmes brings a suite of benefits that cannot be replicated by national funding programmes, such as: Facilitating and stimulating research collaboration with EU partners, many of which are large scale and involve many partners Maximising competition between researchers and innovators across the continent Increasing effectiveness in tackling global challenges Reducing barriers and administrative burden with a single set of rules Security of seven-year funding settlement Broadening researcher networks Access to large, internationally-sourced funding pots through a supranational funding authority Facilitating researcher mobility Economies of scale derived from sharing implementation costs. This EU added value is what has made the Framework Programmes so valuable to UK universities. Therefore, UUK believes that any changes introduced in FP9 should seek to capitalise on these advantages. NOTE 1 Funding from Horizon 2020 to UK universities totalled 715m in 2015/16, equivalent to 14.3% of all research income. 3
WHAT SHOULD BE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE NEXT FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME? In June 2017, UUK identified nine underlying objectives (see below) that the EU Framework Programmes should strive to meet, and these continue to underpin our view of what Framework Programmes should seek to achieve. 1. Provide a long-term, stable source of funding to support excellent research on a competitive basis from the widest possible talent pool 2. A budget commensurate with the need to drive forward research and innovation in Europe, with effective access to funding through simplified mechanisms and light-touch administrative procedures 3. Mainstream and support truly multidisciplinary approaches to societal challenges, including those requiring responses driven primarily by arts, humanities and social sciences research 4. Facilitate multi-lateral cross-border collaboration with European partners and, ideally, partners outside Europe 5. Tackle global challenges and create market opportunities, allowing participants to show global leadership on projects which could not feasibly take place on a national level 6. Continue to provide a mechanism through which UK researchers can benefit from mobility opportunities and create relationships, networks and partnerships 7. Provide funding for, and access to, research infrastructures in the EU 8. Foster industrial competitiveness, innovation ecosystems and nurturing high-growth potential SMEs 9. Provide a balance of top-down and bottom-up support for research and innovation activity from fundamental to applied research and close-to-market innovation. These priorities were informed by the successful implementation of Horizon 2020 over the first few years of the programme and UUK s overwhelmingly positive view of this programme has not changed. Therefore, while there is always room for improvement in implementation, UUK believes that FP9 should build on the successes of Horizon 2020 and maintain continuity with its predecessor as far as possible. At a fundamental level, this should mean retaining the same evaluation criteria of excellence, impact and implementation, and the three-pillar structure. 4
HOW CAN THE NEXT FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME BUILD ON THE SUCCESSES OF HORIZON 2020? Notwithstanding the positive way in which Horizon 2020 is viewed by the UK university community, UUK has identified eight priority areas in which FP9 can build on the success of the current Framework Programme. Budgeting for excellence The European Commission should build on the success of Horizon 2020 by ensuring that FP9 is able to fund a much larger proportion of excellent research. This will require a significant increase to the overall budget. UUK supports increased funding if the programme continues to be based on excellence identified through peer review. Although the budget for Horizon 2020 represented an uplift from its predecessor, Framework Programme 7, the expanded ambitions of the programme and the subsequent reallocation of part of the budget to fund the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) has meant that there has been insufficient funding to support as many projects as evaluators would like. According to the Commission s figures on the first three years of the programme, only 26% of proposals judged as high quality were funded, and an additional 66.3bn would have been required in order to fund all of them. 2 This translates into an overall success rate of 11.6%, compared with 18.5% in FP7. While the breadth of ambition of the programme is welcome, such low success rates create inefficiencies through the hundreds of hours that go into producing high-quality applications which are unsuccessful. There is also a risk that, if this trend continues, excellent researchers will be put off applying for funding due to the perceived unlikelihood of success. In this sense, FP9 could become a victim of its own success if its budget does not increase to match its scale and ambition. Therefore, Universities UK is supporting the European University Association s campaign to increase EU spending on research and innovation 3 to enable FP9 to fund more high-quality research and innovation, provided that this funding continues to be allocated on the basis of excellence identified through pan-european peer-review. Increasing the budget for FP9 would: enable the programme to contribute to its objectives of creating jobs and economic growth and the resolution of global and regional challenges through knowledge generation. increase the budget for the European Research Council, 25% of whose funded research has been shown to have led to major scientific breakthroughs and another 48% to major scientific advances. 4 permit more European researchers to benefit from the mobility opportunities offered by the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions, thanks to which UK institutions have welcomed nearly 2,500 researchers since the start of Horizon 2020. 5 NOTE 2 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/sites/ horizon2020/files/h2020_threeyearson_a4_horizontal_2018_ web.pdf 3 http://eua.be/activities-services/news/ newsitem/2018/02/22/step-up-and-simplify-euinvestment-in-research-and-innovation-a-call-for-action?utm_ source=social&utm_medium=twitter&utm_name=twittersocial-26-02-2018 4 https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/2017- qualitative-evaluation-projects.pdf 5 https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/fundedprojects/horizon-2020-statistics_en 5
In making the case for an increased budget, it should also be stressed that university research and innovation activity is most effectively supported by non-repayable grants and fellowships, as fundamental research is not undertaken on the expectation of direct financial returns. While loans, equity and other financial mechanisms have a role to play in supporting close-to-market innovation activity in businesses in the European Innovation Council, they are not conducive to supporting excellent university research which is equally vital to European competitiveness. Therefore, any increase in the budget of FP9 should not be disproportionately directed towards these modes of support. Fostering distributed excellence across the continent Capacity for research excellence should be built across the continent. EU research funding should complement well-funded and balanced national higher education and research systems in all Member States. It should not act as a levelling instrument which inhibits differentiation and compromises on scientific excellence. The disparities that persist in the level of Horizon 2020 funding allocated to eligible countries are not evidence of a flaw in the design of the Framework Programmes. They result from the fact that research and innovation capability is not evenly spread across the continent. While it would be optimal for research and innovation intensity to increase across the entire continent, it is unrealistic to expect these gaps to be plugged by EU research funding, and would also undermine the entire mission of the Framework Programmes. Instead, EU research and innovation funding should continue to be allocated purely on the basis of excellence identified through peer review. Long-term and sustainable improvements to national research and innovation bases must be driven primarily by domestic investment. EU research and innovation funding adds value to national funding by identifying and bringing together the most promising researchers and ideas from across the continent. This EU added value would be severely inhibited if any form of geographical criteria or quotas were to be added to the assessment criteria. EU funding can play a role in facilitating the distribution of scientific excellence across the continent. Using a small proportion of the overall Framework Programme budget to embrace the targeted spreading of excellence through teaming and twinning is helping to create new pockets of excellence. EU Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) should also be used to build research and innovation capacity. In addition to funding seal of excellence projects, another practical area where ESIF could be productively used is building research management capacity. To summarise, FP9 alone will not solve the innovation gap that exists between EU member states. There needs to be a joined-up approach to distributing scientific and research excellence across the EU with a clear delineation of responsibilities, and a plan for how this will be achieved at each level: Domestic funding needs to increase across the continent to ensure that universities have sufficient funding to train and retain talented academics and increase research and innovation output. The overarching EU target to spend 3% of EU GDP on research and innovation needs to be complemented by commitments to increase research and innovation intensity in all regions to ensure that all parts of Europe benefit from this strengthening of the knowledge base. EU Structural and Investment Funds, through smart specialisation strategies, should complement national funding by supporting regions to develop pools of excellence and help address pan-european disparities in research and innovation capacity. Framework Programme 9 must ensure that excellent research in every participant country is identified on its own merits and funded to help researchers capitalise on the proven benefits of international collaboration. 6
Capitalising on global collaboration opportunities FP9 should aim to improve significantly on the level of international collaboration in Horizon 2020 by supporting more joint programming and making participation by third country researchers in consortia less burdensome. Research is an increasingly global endeavour, with the proportion and quality of internationally co-authored publications steadily rising across the continent. Researchers collaborate internationally because research excellence is spread across the globe and they want to work with the most relevant colleagues irrespective of geographical location. Moreover, international collaboration produces higher impact research; co-authored publications are more commonly cited than national or institutional publications. 6 The Framework Programmes already play an invaluable role in facilitating international collaboration between European researchers which enhances national research bases across the continent. However, this could be further enhanced by capitalising better on global collaboration opportunities. The level of collaborations with non-european partners in Horizon 2020 has declined compared with FP7; so, the European Commission must ensure FP9 better capitalises on global collaboration opportunities to maximise the programme s impact. There are areas of work that would help improve this situation: Joint calls have role to play and the inclusion of the international collaboration flagship initiatives in the 2018-2020 work programme for Horizon 2020 was welcome. The joint called need to be balanced with more funding for international mobility through the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCAs) and networking through the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST). The programme could be made more accessible to third countries by relaxing the verification process for third country research entities not in receipt of funding and allowing a small proportion of grants to be spent on direct costs incurred by third country participants. Alignment with the UN Sustainable Development Goals may also create collaboration opportunities with third countries. NOTE 6 https://www.elsevier.com/ data/assets/pdf_ file/0018/507321/els-beis-web.pdf Taking a more strategic view, there is potential for the European Commission to open associated country status to more non-european countries, such as Canada, who could pay into the programme budget in exchange for full access to funding. When driven by the strength of national research bases and respect for the values and principles of the European Research Area, the inclusion of associated countries is to be welcomed as it broadens the pool of scientific excellence for the Framework Programmes to draw from. Enhancing impact and incorporating arts, humanities and social sciences There is merit in the idea of mission-driven planning as a means of enhancing the economic and social impact of EU research funding. However, this should not be at the expense of support for fundamental research. Communicating the positive impact that public investment in university research and innovation has on society and the economy is vital for public trust in universities and ensuring value for money for taxpayers. To date, the EU Framework Programmes have a strong track record in funding excellent research involving unique international consortia of researchers from universities, research institutes and businesses. However, despite efforts to make the focus of EU research funding clearer, such as the identification of challenges in Horizon 2020 and the requirement for 35% of total budget to be spent on climate-related research, the impact of this research has not always been well communicated to EU citizens. The idea of mission-oriented planning has been proposed by the European Commission to make the impact of EU research and innovation funding clearer by identifying and tackling the most important social and economic problems for the EU over the next seven years. According to Professor Mariana Mazzucato, who is advising Commissioner Moedas on this matter, the goal of mission-oriented innovation planning is to [focus] on concrete problems that require system-wide transformation across different types of sectors, and involves partnerships between different actors (private, public, third sector, civil society). This would shift the definition and evaluation of impact to the level of missions rather than individual projects. The Framework Programmes already bring together diverse interdisciplinary actors to profound effect, so harnessing these consortia to make progress 7
towards specified missions could be effective, as long as there is flexibility in how these missions should be achieved and support for the whole innovation chain leading to the accomplishment of missions. The proposal for more ambitious transformational missions alongside more targeted accelerator missions provides a useful framework for this approach, dependent on what they cover. However, there needs to be continued understanding that, while missions provide an intended direction of travel, research and innovation is an exploratory process which does not always lead to the expected destination. Using the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to inform the identification of missions is a promising idea. There needs to be worldwide coordination of research and innovation funding to coalesce around these shared goals, behind which the EU can be a driving force (see Capitalising on global collaboration opportunities ). The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has undertaken useful mapping work on this front and should be consulted as mission-oriented planning takes shape. Mission-oriented planning should only apply to the Societal Challenges pillar in FP9, and should not affect the Excellent Science pillar. EU commitment to fundamental research is very important and it is EU funding that has often supporting world leading fundamental research, such as the ground-breaking work of Nobel Prize winners in Physics Professor Konstantin Novoselov and Professor Andre Geim on two-dimensional graphene. Moreover, it is vital that there is a comprehensive consultation process on the development of the missions, and that the rationale behind and details of this change are clearly communicated to researchers well in advance of the change so that universities have sufficient time to plan for and adapt to this shift. Missions may provide an opportunity to better incorporate arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS) into FP9 than Horizon 2020. Due to the crucial role these subjects have in addressing society s challenges, it is imperative that these disciplines help define the mission topics and assess applications, as well as fully participate in the projects themselves. Quality Education, Gender Equality and Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions are just three examples of SDGs which require AHSS-led responses. Similarly, it remains the case that technology readiness levels are not an effective appropriate measure of impact for societal challenges. Looking beyond these missions, the communication of research and innovation impact needs to be a priority for the wider European Research Area and not just for the EU Framework Programmes. In the UK context, thanks to the Research Excellence Framework (REF), a broad, long-term and multifaceted view of the political, health, technological, economic, legal, cultural, societal and environmental impact of research is taken by research funders. While the REF itself would not translate to EU-level, the European Commission could request short impact case studies along the lines of those required for the REF as a final deliverable report. 8
Continue to make FP9 more accessible Further simplification should be balanced with the need for continuity in order to make FP9 a more attractive source of funding. Horizon 2020 made numerous improvements in terms of accessibility and simplification compared with its predecessors. Thanks to this, figures from the first three years of the programme show that a majority of successful applicants (54.4%) were from organisations that had not applied to the Framework Programmes before. In order to continue to ensure new organisations and new individuals are encouraged to apply for funding, FP9 should be consistent with the overall structure of Horizon 2020 and rules should be common to all instruments (as far as possible). Further simplification can be achieved in three ways: Firstly, more use of the two-stage application process should be made where appropriate. This would help minimise the administrative burden of applying for funding, which can be a disincentive for busy academics and researchers. This would also reduce the inefficiency of drafting unsuccessful applications. Secondly, to ensure continuity with existing practices, the Commission should resist the wholesale changes to the cost reimbursement that the move to lump sum funding would entail. In addition, the Commission should respect national accounting rules as far as possible to minimise the need to establish parallel systems for national and European awards. Thirdly, more can still be done to improve the accessibility of the programme. The Horizon 2020 website, which can appear overwhelming to those who are not familiar with it, could still be improved to make funding opportunities clearer to prospective applicants. Reinforcing the knowledge triangle In recognition of their contribution to driving forward innovation and economic growth, there should be a clear role for universities to play in the European Innovation Council. Universities play a unique role in the heart of the knowledge triangle, bringing together education, research and innovation activity under one roof. This brings a wealth of synergies which policymakers should seek to capitalise on when promoting economic growth through innovation. Therefore, we broadly support the recommendations of the European Innovation Council (EIC) High Level Group in their report, Europe is back: Accelerating breakthrough innovation 7, provided there is a recognition of the value of university knowledge exchange (through patents and intellectual property rights, spin-off companies, graduate start-ups activity) to breakthrough innovation alongside traditional businesses. This is why the European Commission should ensure there are funding possibilities to translate the creation of knowledge in universities into economic gains in the EIC. This could also be helped by offering the European Research Council proof of concept-style grants to collaborative projects across the programme. The knowledge triangle is also the basis for the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. This initiative should continue, albeit with further simplification to the way that knowledge and innovation communities are administered. A diverse and inclusive FP9 The next Framework Programme should go further in tackling inequalities in the ERA by providing funding for pan-european mentoring programmes and better support for flexible working in EU research grants. EU funding alone will not solve the inequalities that exist in the European research and innovation space. However, it can play an important role in spreading good practice across the continent. While there has been progress against some of the indicators set out by the Commission in its gender equality plan, there remain areas of the programme where chronic under-representation of women persists, such as in European Research Council grants. Women make up on 13% of advanced grantees since the ERC s establishment in 2008, with only small increases in the most recent competitions (16% for the 2016 call). 8 Although there should be no move away from making funding decisions on the basis of excellence, the European Commission should consider what it can do to both level the playing field and encourage NOTE 7 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/eic_hlg_bz_web.pdf 8 https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/ Gender_statistics_Dec_2016.pdf 9
more applications from women. One idea would be to create a Europe-wide network of national gender equality champions who have knowledge and experience of success in EU funding competitions to encourage women to pursue EU funding opportunities. There is also scope to consider whether current arrangements to accommodate parental, adoption or care leave, and part-time work are adequately accommodated across the Programme. Moreover, the European Commission should not neglect other forms of inequality that exist in the European research and innovation space. Through the European Research Area, the Commission should broaden its focus and consider potential underrepresentation of other protected characteristics such as ethnicity and disability. Driving forward the Open Science agenda There is a strong and widely-held consensus that The open access mandate in Horizon 2020 should be retained and better supported by providing cost coverage for article processing charges beyond the project lifeline. open science is a force for good in research and innovation. It helps make research more transparent, rigorous and efficient, stimulates innovation, and promotes public engagement. This is why the UK Government wants all publicly-funded research and research data to be available to the public, for free. UK researchers have made rapid progress towards this target, with the most recent statistics showing that 54% of UK-authored publications were openly accessible within 12 months of publication. 9 Horizon 2020 has already shown how EU research and innovation funding can be an effective tool in driving forward the open science agenda. The open access publishing mandate in Horizon 2020 has been well-received by UK universities as a helpful complement to UK policy. However, the mandate would be more effective if EU funding were available to fund article processing charges (APCs) beyond the project duration. At present, a significant financial burden is imposed on institutions, especially smaller ones, when they have to fund APCs (up to 3,000 in some cases) for gold open access (OA) publications after the project has concluded, even though they are enforcing the Horizon 2020 OA mandate and the APCs would be an eligible cost if the publication had been finalised during the project life. It is important to take into consideration that there is a good chance that more publications will be submitted after the project finishes. Open research data and the FAIR principles (Fair, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) are also crucial to this agenda. Alongside national funders, the European Commission must invest more in providing training on this issue to early career researchers, through the MSCAs for example. Rolling out the European Open Science Cloud will also facilitate the expansion of the open research data culture. CONCLUDING REMARKS There is no doubt that the EU Framework Programmes have provided an excellent catalyst for research and innovation collaboration between UK and EU researchers. Currently, Horizon 2020 provides a ready-made platform for collaborating with key European partners, including six of the UK s top ten research partners. Participation in Horizon 2020 allows access to a multi-national pooled financial resource that supports and incentivises collaboration. The programme offers globally-recognised prestige, enabling access and exposure to networks and contacts that inform further collaborations. It also provides a single regulatory framework for collaboration. Universities UK believes that the positive impact of Horizon 2020 can be further enhanced in the next programme by addressing the issues identified in this paper, and so we would encourage the European Commission to prioritise these themes in developing FP9. NOTE 9 http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/documents/2017/monitoring-transition-open-access-2017.pdf 10