Stakeholders discuss value of EU technology institute[de] 

"I'm pleased to note that we are no longer talking about whether or not to establish the European Institute of Technology (EIT) but about how we are going to establish it," concluded Education Commissioner Ján Figel at a public hearing on 2 May 2007.

However, the expert interventions preceding Commissioner Figel's conclusion still reflected serious doubts about both the legal and financial structures of the proposed EIT and questioned the value-added of such an institute.

Nina Škottová, the draftsperson of the Budget Committee's opinion on EIT expressed "legal doubts" on the planned financing, fearing that EIT activities would be financed at the expense of regional EU projects as money could be allocated from structural and regional funds. Eric Hödl from the European Academy of Sciences and Arts said that prioritising EIT over existing research and innovation activities would "seriously harm the EU university system". 

"The current proposal represents no value-added to existing programmes and tools. We are particularly worried with regards funding as many parallel structures exist," said Willi Fuchs, president of the European Federation of Engineering Associations (FEANI). He proposed, instead, to support regions' innovation activities, as it is often at regional level that research and innovation translate into jobs.

Kari Raivio from the League of European Research Universities (LERU) recommended the Parliament and Council to consider how the EIT aligns with existing plans and programmes aiming to improve the quality and competitiveness of European higher education, EU R&D, and the bloc's innovation system.

With regards education, the EIT "might bring value-added" as doctoral training would partly take place in industrial environment. "However, such joint ventures could and should be developed between universities and companies without the necessity of setting up a new entity for it," said Raivio. 

With regard R&D, the EIT "could foster collaboration between excellent existing research units in universities, research institutes and industry". However "such collaboration is already widespread and spontaneous, and it is not self-evident that a top-down setting of priorities will bring together new combinations of talent", argued Raivio.

He also underlined that the only reason for the "innovation gap" between the EU and the US is the amount of money spent on R&D. All European countries trail the US's yearly $300 billion R&D spending and the some €2.4 billion foreseen for the EIT between 2008-2013 "does not represent a decisive boost in funding".