Sharp criticism of European Union research funding has been made by the union's Court of Auditors. The court has called into question the long-term viability of
research networks, the efforts made to channel funds to small and medium-sized
enterprises and many of the administrative procedures.

Although the European Commission has responded on a case-by-case basis to the charges, the complaints will add to the impression that Europe is still struggling to get its research policies properly on track at a time of increasing demand for innovation and technical prowess.

The court's strictures are laid against the EU's multi-billion euro Framework Programmes for research - the single largest public source of research funding in Europe, with an overall share of between 4% and 5% of total public R&D expenditure. The Court of Auditors is the EU's official spending watchdog agency.

Its most serious charge concerns the long-term viability of the research networks created by the EU's 6th Framework Research Programme. It says that "most networks of excellence fall apart once EU funding dries up".

While scientists, companies and institutions were happy to cooperate while EU money was on the table, the programme "failed to reach the ultimate goal of attracting additional public and private funding which would have stimulated a self-sustaining network".

One member of the court said that only a minority of networks - "and none of those visited by the court in the audit - moved convincingly towards self-sustainable integration with prospects for longer-term survival beyond the ending of EU funding". Brussels replied there was a possibility of supporting some networks of excellence under the current FP7 programme.

The court noted that the policy of earmarking 15% of research funding for SMEs had proven a perennial problem given the expensive and time-consuming administrative procedures involved. Only around 10% of the funding theoretically available was actually channelled to small businesses because of "barriers to entry" such as the complexity of applying for funds.

Another obstacle was the requirement to share pre-existing intellectual property with other participants in the networks. The commission said some of these issues had been addressed in FP7 while there were now newer programmes for SMEs.

"The commission considers that FP6 was properly monitored and evaluated," it said. Replying to the court's accusation that "the absence of an explicit intervention logic and the imprecise definition of the objectives" made it more difficult to monitor performance and evaluate results, Brussels said its work had always been based on sound logic.

Under FP7 all work programmes contained expected impact statements corresponding to the objectives, rationale and activities set out in the specific programmes, it said. As for the call for improved manageability of projects and faster grant-awarding procedures, the commission said it had to balance the desire for a speedy disbursement of funds with the need for accountability.

alan.osborn@uw-news.com

Printable version
Email to a friend
Comment on this article

Disclaimer: All reader responses posted on this site are those of the reader ONLY and NOT those of University World News or Higher Education Web Publishing, their associated trademarks, websites and services. University World News or Higher Education Web Publishing does not necessarily endorse, support, sanction, encourage, verify or agree with any comments, opinions or statements or other content provided by readers.