EU research instruments unclear in their goals, says Marimon report 

The long awaited Marimon report on the mid-term evaluation of the new instruments of the EU's Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) was presented to the informal Competitiveness Council on 3 July 2004, reports the Commission's web service on research policy, CORDIS News. The report contains 12 recommendations on ways to make the Integrated Projects (IPs) and Networks of Excellence (NoEs) more effective.

The report addresses the following main issues:

• Costs and administrative hurdles involved in submitting a proposal: the panel found that the costs and risks of participation in FP6 were "unreasonably high". In its recent Communication on the priorities on future EU research policy ('Science and technology, the key to Europe's future' of 16 June 2004), the Commission had already stated its intention to improve the regulatory and administrative environment in , in particular by increasing transparency of the evaluation process, reducing delays and minimising the cost of preparing projects.
• Size of projects and 'critical mass': Many participants have overestimated the required size of a consortium, submitting proposals with far too many project partners. 'Critical mass', however, should not be considered as an absolute figure, but 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," reads the report.
• Clarification of the instruments' goals: While the response rate to the first calls of FP6 was very high, only 17 per cent of applicants received funding, which suggests that the criteria had not been laid out clearly enough. "The Commission addressed this problem in the second call, which was much clearer," Achilleas Mitsos of DG Research told CORDIS News.
• Evaluation procedure: The group proposes the implementation of a two-step evaluation procedure, whereby applicants first submit a short proposal, which would be evaluated according to a few specific criteria such as adequacy and excellence. If participants receive positive feedback, a more detailed proposal would be prepared. This procedure would help to reduce the costs and risk of participation.
• SME participation: Although FP6 stipulates a 15 per cent target for SME participation, the achieved level has been disappointingly low. At the 2004 Spring Summit EU governments shared this view, concluding that "[..] the Framework Programme must be simplified to make it more user-friendly, in particular for small and medium sized industries and start-ups. The priorities should be to promote co-operation between business and research".
• Increased flexibility for participants: The panel has raised its concern about the limitation of certain calls to certain instruments, as this could lead to proposals being adapted to potentially unsuitable instruments in order to heighten their chances of receiving funding. Dr Marimon therefore suggested that researchers select the most appropr iate instrument to meet their research objectives.