Interview: Helga Nowotny on European Research Council 

Helga Nowotny is the head of the European Research Advisory Board (EURAB ) and a recently appointed member of the Scientific Council of the European Research Council. 

How could the ERC start its work with the approval of the FP7 still pending? 

The Commission decided to go ahead with the ERC under the assumption "as if" [the FP7 had been approved]. If we were to wait with the preparation until everything that is legally and financially necessary is in place, it would mean a huge delay. The ERC is a genuine innovation in EU research policy. As is the case also with other innovations, it has to proceed sometimes on the assumption – and the hope – that the necessary money will be there in the end. 

Some Members of the European Parliament have expressed their disappointment that the Parliament was not consulted during the appointment procedure. Could you comment on the way the  ERC's Scientific Council was appointed?

The Commission was wise, as well as courageous, to set up a small, independent Nomination Committee, chaired by Lord Patten. This was meant to be a strong signal for the intended autonomy of the ERC. The major scientific organisations in Europe and academies as well as national research councils, European Foundations, the European University Association and others were invited to submit names of suitable candidates. 

It is true that neither the European Parliament nor national governments were included in the consultation. This was to underline that the future members of the Scientific Council should not represent their countries, but act in their individual capacity. Surprisingly, the procedure and its outcome succeeded in being a nomination by the scientific community for the scientific community. This achievement is truly remarkable. 

How would you describe the composition of  the Scientific Council ? 

The composition of the Scientific Council reflects not only the high quality of its individual members in terms of their scientific reputation and track record of excellence, but is a good balance of research fields and their dynamics in Europe. It is not discipline-based in a narrow sense, but comprises broad disciplinary clusters and an openess towards interdisciplinarity. One member comes from industry and five of the twenty-two members are women. 

What were the main outcomes of this first meeting of the Scientific Council held in October 2005? 

The first meeting was devoted to getting to know each other and deciding on the election of the Chair and the two Vice Chairs. The Scientific Council endorsed, however, the setting up of an Executive Agency as the administrative implementation structure that the Commission has proposed. But it also decided that it will have its own Secretary General who will have to liaise with the Director of the Executive Agency on a day to day basis. All other substantive matters – and there are many – will be discussed at the next meeting in January 2006. 

What was the role of the Initiative for Science (ISE) conference held at UNESCO on 9-10 November 2005 to celebrate "the first concrete steps towards the implementation of the ERC" for the development of the ERC?

The participants of the ISE conference got much better insights into what the stakes are and into the many issues that still need to be resolved. They were competently briefed by the Commission on the next steps. Having a member of the European Parliament informing the conference on the position taken by the EP was also welcomed. It is important that the ERC has broad support – form the Commission, the EP and member states. 

The status of ERC has raised discussion among EU's research ministers - some agreeing with the Commission's initial proposal, others proposing a more autonomous entity where the ERC's Scientific Council would have wider powers. What is the current state of play of the discussions and which option do you back?

I am not informed in detail on which member states support which option. I know that in re-drafting this part of the FP7, the UK presidency has endorsed the autonomy of the ERC. 

My personal opinion is that the ERC must start as quickly as possible, which in administrative terms means having a highly efficient and lean Executive Agency. After three years there will be an assessment of the respective benefits or drawbacks of the various options are. These should then be discussed on the basis of real experience and not in the abstract. 

What are the next steps for ERC before the FP7 is approved? 

The next meeting of the ERC's Scientific Council will be held in January 2006. By the end of November the Council’s Chair and the two Vice-Chairs will be known and will start to prepare the next steps.