Materials Science and Engineering Expert Committee ...ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/.../materials_science_and_engineering... · Materials Science and Engineering is a trans-disciplinary

1

Materials Science and Engineering Expert Committee (MatSEEC)

Materials Science and Engineering Experts Committee response to the EC Green

Paper From Challenges to opportunities: Towards a common strategic framework for EU

Research and Innovation funding

MatSEEC strongly supports the goals declared by the European Commission for the

Common Strategic Framework (CSF) for Research and Innovation: to deepen and expand Europe’s scientific base, to strengthen and accelerate the path ways in the full innovation

cycle from fundamental research results to new technologies, products and solutions to the global Societal Challenges. The global environment in which the European Union must

achieve these goals is challenging: The European Union Member States are among the most advanced knowledge-based societies in the world. The European Union must enhance and

harmonize its scientific knowledge base. It must enhance its efforts to counter regional imbalances in the knowledge base by means of internal European cooperation and, at the

same time, it must increase its productivity in the global market in competition with the rest of the world. These tasks call for new schemes to facilitate the generation of innovation, the

development and deployment of new technologies and to create faster innovation cycles in Europe.

Materials Science and Engineering is a trans-disciplinary field and deals with the

entire innovation and materials chains from novel or raw materials to advanced materials processing, from the original fundamental investigations of new materials to the industrial

deployment of ‘smart’ production processes. We commend the Commission for identify ing that now is the time to expand European research efforts to cover the entire innovation

cycle without jeopardizing the traditional European strength in fundamental research. Trans-disciplinary fields are crucial in this context as they are fields that underpin all regions

of research and development, they are knowledge-intensive and it is there where one will find the emerging and converging technologies that hold the solutions to the Societal

challenges of the future. Europe must take advantage of its knowledge base and accelerate the development of new technologies. MatSEEC strongly recommends a dedicated

programme for advanced materials, function-tailored materials and process engineering to underpin the goals of the Common Strategic Framework. MatSEEC identifies f ive key

principles, which should guide the design of such a programme, or of any programme for R&D in Europe:

2

1. Promote excellence

Europe has a strong science base, high standards in academic training and skilled work force. These key elements of a knowledge-based society will be undermined if their support is not enhanced in a future CSF. Scientific excellence has been and should be the upmost criterion to benchmark and guide that support. Scientific excellence must remain the prime benchmark for all research in Europe. In the light of the need to innovate and develop new materials and technologies for Europe’s productivity and competitiveness the term scientific excellence needs to be complemented by the term “Technological

Excellence”, to include “relevance” of the scientific finding or research result, and ‘potential’ of the new result, i.e. the impact potential, the transformative or disruptive power a new

technology can promise. “Technology excellence” means prioritizing ‘blue skies’ research: focus on what is

relevant and what promises impact. This is the initial selection to be made to take a fundamental research result into the next stage of the innovation cycle. MatSEEC recommends this principle should be clearly visible in all programmes for Science and Innovation.

2. Close the innovation gap

The ‘European paradox’ has been described as the mismatch between an excellent

scientific base, as demonstrated in high publication rates in top scientific journals, or even in the number of patents on the one side and the poor innovation rate in Europe on the other,

i.e. the low rate of exploitation of European patents, the rather long conversion times from research to production and to market introduction. This is often described as an innovation

gap where tools to support pilot applications by targeted technology development, technological start-ups and effective public-private partnerships are very rare in Europe.

MatSEEC suggests that all programmes should have instruments dedicated to closing the innovation gap, i.e.: proposals should include an IP production and exploitation plan

Speed and flexibility matter a lot and MatSEEC recommends that dedicated small (i.e.: fast) technology development projects (STREP-like) be given a priority over large

projects and large consortia. These STREP- like projects must be maintained. They should be monitored in programmes to create new development networks, technology platforms and

clusters for technological development. The Commission should complement STREP-like programmes by an open programme for technology development, prototyping and technology validation and production up-scaling. Dedicated funds for start-ups and flexible public-private-partnerships must be part of such a programme.

The recently introduced possibility of optional funding an implementation phase in the Seventh Framework Programme (e.g.: already established for ERC grants) should be continued and extended.

3. Strengthen cooperation

The European Research Area is built on European cross-border cooperation, and the mobility of researchers and ideas. If Europe as a whole is to tackle the societal challenges,

3

and in particular, if Europe’s economy is to prevail in the current dynamic globalisation trends, internal cooperation within European countries must be intensified and expanded to public-private commercialisation. The European cultural and societal diversities can only be made into an asset by cooperation. The CSF should have strong bottom-up cooperation initiatives. These should address joint-training and education, but also joint-technology development programmes.

Support for European Research Infrastructures is an ideal field for cooperation.

MatSEEC suggests to expand the concept of research infrastructures to define” technological research infrastructures”. Technological research infrastructures can provide

infrastructure, equipment and even real production facilities for external technology developers to help develop new technologies and test new production lines in an

embedded-close –to-real-life environment. These Infrastructures can evolve out of existing National technology clusters and technology validation platforms.

4. Create global impact

The added values of “Technological Excellence” are relevance and impact. “Relevance” is about making “smart” selections, which technologies are the most promising to be supported. They must tackle a societal challenge. “Smart” decisions can be “tough” but they are clearly necessary in times of limited budgets and the need for a faster creation of innovation, jobs and economic growth. To guide to smart decisions emphasis must be laid on “impact” or “impact potential”: does the aspired innovation/technology also promise to disrupt a market, to transform our lives? A “high impact smart specialisation” strategy for Europe would be to enhance the support for key enabling technologies.

Countering fragmentation increases impact as well. Extra-academic Research and

Technology Organisations (RTOs) fulfil a bridge function between academic research and industrial application. In the past Framework Programmes RTOs have not been optimally

engaged due to their mixed character as organisations with private and public funding. MatSEEC recommends that the CSF should provide an instrument or tools dedicated to

enable the coordination of collaborative technological research by RTOs and partners. The strategic research alliances in FP 7 are a good role model.

Another indicator of impact is the production capacity in Europe. The CSF should have tailored programmes to include financial models to build demonstrators and

production pilot lines, and, in particular, to scale up to large production.

5. Simplify the rules

All programmes and instruments should be based on the same set of participation rules. These rules need to be streamlined and simplified in comparison to FP 7. This will also boost the overall participation in the CSF.

The nationally valid accounting rules should be generally accepted for EC projects. The European Commission should also install consistent funding conditions, for instance, concerning funding rates and IP-regulations.

Materials Science and Engineering Expert Committee

4

MatSEEC’s response to the online questionnaire for the Green Paper on a common

strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding

Working together to deliver on Europe 2020

The questions in this section correspond to Section 4.1 of the Green Paper.

1. How should the Common Strategic Framework make EU research and innovation

funding more attractive and easy to access for participants? What is needed in addition to a single entry point with common IT tools, a one stop shop for support, a streamlined set

of funding instruments covering the full innovation chain and further steps towards administrative simplification?

The Material Science and Engineering Expert Committee (MatSEEC) recognizes the

need for simplification of administrative procedures at the EU level and strongly supports all efforts directed towards making EU funding instruments more easily accessible and

efficient. Simplification can be achieved by reducing and streamlining the number of different

programmes and schemes. Continuous support should be provided to flexible instruments

supporting excellent research (basic and applied) and providing first-class education to new generations of researchers.

Apart from the continuation of the funding of excellent basic and applied research the necessity for tailored funding instruments to cover the full innovation chain is seen as a

priority and requires a significant effort in terms of funding and implementation. European research and innovation funding should be faster and more reactive in supporting new

trends and technologies that need large-scale investments at the European level. Funding schemes in Europe often have significantly longer timelines than in North America and East

Asia or they are too small to produce significant impact. Funding schemes with adequate resources matching the goals identified as priorities for Europe, should be available timely.

All actors of the innovation process (from academic researchers to industrial players) should be able to readily access necessary resources for competing at the global scale.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? [Very important,

Important, Of some importance, Unimportant, Don't know]

2 How should EU funding best cover the full innovation cycle from research to market uptake?

To cover the full innovation chain action is needed along three main lines: knowledge production (basic and applied research, education and training), knowledge transfer and development of technologies (including production). Europe is traditionally strong in the first part and this position has to be –at least- maintained. However,


5

weaknesses exist in relation to knowledge transfer, the development of technologies and prototyping, all of them requiring special attention. Furthermore, European industries

unfortunately seem to have a certain aversion to risk taking and investment in radically new technologies. It is therefore recommended to put in place tailored funding models that will

address each stage of the innovation chain, adequately covering knowledge transfer and development of new technologies.

For projects oriented to experimental methodology and development of new principles, funding models supporting the knowledge production stage are needed. European industries can only absorb innovations that have been sufficiently consolidated. However, restricting funding only to projects addressing the entire innovation chain is not a solution for sustainable long-term progress.

Funding for post-research, prototyping and upscaling of new technologies into large scale production is urgently needed. These funding lines should be targeted to ensure that inventions result in innovations (products, services etc.) and should focus on proof-of-concepts, demonstrators and pilots.



3 What are the characteristics of EU funding that maximise the benefit of acting at the EU level? Should there be a strong emphasis on leveraging other sources of funding?

In addition to the research and innovation funding mentioned above, Europe needs

investments in research infrastructures that will ensure access to European researchers to state-of-the art facilities for basic research, development and innovation. Some of them are already established and more are planned and efforts should be focused to ensure open access, world-class quality standards and efficient use of these facilities in the future. More details are given under question 25.



4 How should EU research and innovation funding be used to pool Member States' research and innovation resources? Should Joint Programming Initiatives between groups of Member States be supported?

The EU should not only support and encourage excellent cross border research in

Europe but also provide specific incentives to the national funding organisations to promote this type of funding. Joint Programming Initiatives are of utmost importance having the

political landscape and the specificities of smaller European countries in mind. The transfer of research results into new applications and the development of new

technologies is the explicit role of Europe’s Research and Technology Organisations (RTOs). Examples include TNO (NL), VTT (FI), Tecnalia (ES), CEA (FR), Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (DE),

CSEM (CH) and others. Most of these RTOs have strong links with academia and have


6

successful histories in applied public research and commissioned research for industry. Most of them are non-profit and dually funded through private contracts and public funds

while keeping a clear legal separation between public and private investments including the management of intellectual property. RTOs operation schemes offer a transparent model to

narrow the innovation gap (valley of death) in Europe. However, RTOs besides not being implanted in all EU countries, do not generally cover the first stages of the innovation chain (i.e., the basic research) and do not represent but a limited share of the total European R&D system.

The EC should survey RTOs and innovation programmes in the Member States and implement the best practices developed and tested in the national context at the European level.



5 What should be the balance between smaller, targeted projects and larger, strategic ones?

Both are very relevant and quality and excellence should be the main criteria when

evaluating basic and applied research projects in bottom-up schemes. It is important to stress that this also includes engineering research that is currently less supported by purely bottom-up schemes such as the ERC. On the long term, the output of research projects will feed into the innovation process and therefore support to bottom-up research has to be constantly provided. Supporting engineering research is also crucial for ensuring a solid innovation chain and creating the know-how needed by European industries.

Research schemes need to be flexible and allow for funding of individual researchers and small to medium consortia without boundaries or restrictions on participants. Experience shows, that most ground-breaking ideas are developed by few partners often from different European countries. Mechanisms for supporting such bottom-up small consortia (2-3 groups) are urgently needed as they are not currently available, which represents a most serious handicap for European research supposed to compete with research conducted worldwide.

Large scale-strategic projects addressing the whole innovation chain and requiring participation of academia, research institutions, RTOs and industries need to be treated with different criteria. For such projects public and private funding should be combined and tailored to address the “valley of death” issue in the most efficient way.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? [Very important, Important, Of some importance, Unimportant, Don't know]

6 How could the Commission ensure the balance between a unique set of

rules allowing for radical simplification and the necessity to keep a certain degree of flexibility and diversity to achieve objectives of different instruments, and respond to the

needs of different beneficiaries, in particular SMEs?


7

This is a complex issue and it deserves to be addressed in much more details that it

can be provided in the context of the present survey


7. What should be the measures of success for EU research and innovation funding? Which performance indicators could be used?

Measures of success for EU research and innovation funding have to take into

account the fact that innovation is a process with its characteristic timescales. Curiosity driven research is one of the cornerstones of this process that eventually results in inventions. As such, inventions can not be scheduled. The development of ideas into products is subject to even more complex mechanisms and constraints. As a result, the impact of the research underlying this process can only be evaluated over time frames often longer than the duration of a Framework Programme.

Surely, for research, in particular in the engineering sciences, and for funding innovation processes, a paradigm shift is needed with respect to the well-established

evaluation solely based on highly-ranked publications. Patents on one side and the transfer into new products on the other side are possible reasonable performance indicators. Other indicators of success include monitoring of transfer of activities between academic research and industry and mobility of staff (researchers, engineers and technical staff) between academia and industry (in both directions).

Along with these indicators, it is necessary to develop legal and regulatory frameworks that would allow the efficient implementation of transfer activities, provide incentives (bonuses, awards, salary increases) and valorise mobility and careers conducted partly in industry and partly in academia.


Important, Of some importance, Unimportant, Don't know] 8. How should EU research and innovation funding relate to regional and

national funding? How should this funding complement funds from the future Cohesio n policy, designed to help the less developed regions of the EU, and the rural development funds?

EU research and innovation funding should support projects that need support at

European level either because of the scope or the resources needed.



8

Tackling Societal Challenges


9. How should a stronger focus on societal challenges affect the balance between curiosity-driven research and agenda-driven activities?

Strong differences with respect to societal challenges in different European countries

still exist and this is reflected in the role that research and innovation have in addressing the priorities at the national level. The role of the EC should be to oversee the landscape and the evolution of research and innovation agendas in its Members States by providing

coordination, fostering interactions and identifying common objectives where joint efforts are beneficial. The cultural and societal diversity of the European research landscape is a

strong asset that should be preserved and used to make the most of it. Above this, Europe as a whole is facing very critical societal challenges, particularly if the European economy is

not able to respond to the globalization. Decrease of the wealth fare of the citizens will likely be the main result of the loss of competitiveness and this will affect to all EU

individuals, whatever their country or societal ascription. In this regard, a good balance should be found between curiosity driven and agenda driven programs. In this latter case

important economy sectors and activities should be considered for defining , even if in a broad way, the research topics.



10. Should there be more room for bottom-up activities? Absolutely, bottom up activities are the first step in the innovation chain and as such

provide the necessary base for the advance of knowledge and inventions that will eventually lead to innovation and benefits to the entire society. Europe must make all necessary efforts to provide a stimulating environment for the development of new ideas and ensure its attractiveness for researchers and innovators worldwide. This can be achieved through the enhancement of schemes which support excellent research such as the ERC and its extension to the funding of bottom-up collaborations across Europe and possibly even broader.



11. How should EU research and innovation funding best support policy-making and forward-looking activities?


9

Forward looking activities provide useful tools for informing decision makers on possible future scenarios and as such should be used in a professional and consistent way

while recognizing the limitations of the methods and models used. The use of independent experts representing academia, research centres and industries is strongly recommended in

particular for areas that need scientific or technological input (i.e. roadmaps) . The results of such activities should be broadly discussed and disseminated amongst all stakeholders including industries and the broader community.

[Very important, Important, Of some importance, Unimportant, Don't know]

12. How should the role of the Commission's Joint Research Centre be improved in supporting policy-making and forward-looking activities? [NA]


13. How could EU research and innovation activities attract greater interest and

involvement of citizens and civil society? Public outreach and dissemination is of greatest importance as it provides the

opportunity to inform European tax payers on the use of their contributions. Moreover, raising awareness about the research and innovation achievements results in improved interest, knowledge and general awareness of the public about issues related to science and technology which is necessity in today’s knowledge based society. It is therefore recommended that activities funded by the EU are presented in a comprehensive and simple way through web, (social) media, dedicated publications and outreach events. Particular aspect should be given to educational aspects aimed at stimulating the interest of young generations in science, new technologies and innovation.

It should also be stressed that there a strong link exists between innovation and living standard. European citizens or individuals should realize that their future in terms of salary, social revenues, etc. will strongly depend on the innovation and therefore, on R&D : the alternative is either to be poorer or to innovate.



Strengthening competitiveness



10

14. How should EU funding best take account of the broad nature of innovation, including non-technological innovation, eco-innovation and social innovation?

Inventions often arise from free-thinking processes which, combined with a dynamic

entrepreneurship mentality and favourable context, result in real innovation and breakthroughs. Further support is needed to develop entrepreneurship mentality and skills amongst European scientist, researchers and engineers. Although part of it can be achieved by specific training, a culturally profound attitude change should also take place. This can be stimulated by providing an open minded environment for innovation where risk-taking is accepted and actually rewarded within reasonable limits.


15. How should industrial participation in EU research and innovation programmes be strengthened? How should Joint Technology Initiatives (such as those launched in the current Framework Programmes) or different forms of 'public private partnership' be supported? What should be the role of European Technology Platforms?

Europe needs to work on measures to reinforce technological research and shorten the time to bring the new technologies to the market. For this purpose it is essential to ensure the active involvement of the industrial sector which, in most cases, feels a certain aversion to risk. This aversion to real new innovation has as a consequence, for example in the field on materials sciences and engineering, that companies, particularly SMEs, are prompt to participate in development and innovation activities related with their present production lines, but are rather reluctant to be involved in R&D activities focussed on disruptive processes/products of medium term application. As a conseque nce, many breakthroughs obtained in the research laboratories do not find a way to be brought into products for the worldwide market. To favour the participation of companies in risky, applicable at medium term, research it is necessary to establish new and flexible public-private-partnership involving SMEs, industrial consortia, academia, Research and Technology Organisations (RTOs) and governmental research organisations. These new funding schemes should be attractive to the companies and also have a focus on new existing technologies, products and processes.

Industries should be actively involved in covering the end part of the value chain by providing products specifications and addressing product development, commercialization and up-scaling for mass production.



16. How and what types of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SME) should be supported at EU level; how should this complement national and regional level schemes?


11

What kind of measures should be taken to decisively facilitate the participation of SMEs in EU research and innovation programmes?

SMEs are very important players in the innovation chain. Especially technology

oriented growth SME companies are critical in the implementation of research results and in their commercialization. Therefore, the better integration of these type SMEs into EU research framework programmes is highly recommended.


Important, Of some importance, Unimportant, Don't know] 17 How should open, light and fast implementation schemes (e.g. building on the current FET actions and CIP eco-innovation market replication projects) be designed to allow flexible exploration and commercialisation of novel ideas, in particular by SMEs? [NA]



18. How should EU-level financial instruments (equity and debt based) be used more extensively?

[NA] How important are the aspects covered in this question? [Very important,

Important, Of some importance, Unimportant, Don't know] 19. Should new approaches to supporting research and innovation be introduced, in particular through public procurement, including through rules on pre-commercial procurement, and/or inducement prizes? [NA]

How important are the aspects covered in this question? [Very impo rtant, Important, Of some importance, Unimportant, Don't know]

20. How should intellectual property rules governing EU funding strike the right balance between competitiveness aspects and the need for access to and dissemination of

scientific results?

Although the underlying political discussion around establishing a European Patent is complex, MatSEEC would like to underline the urgent and utmost need of a common

scheme of patent applications and legal rules to all EU countries. This is considered an


12

unavoidable condition to foster effective transfer of knowledge from academia to the industry.


Important, Of some importance, Unimportant, Don't know] Strengthening Europe's science base and the European Research Area


21 How should the role of the European Research Council be strengthened in

supporting world class excellence ?

Currently, the European Research Council runs calls for proposals for individual grants and supports “investigator-driven frontier research” evaluated by the sole criterion of

excellence. As such, it has reached a high degree of professionalism good governance practices as far as proposal evaluation is concerned. The funding provided has been

extremely beneficial and should without any doubt be continued in the future. It is suggested that the ERC should also provide funding for excellent bottom up

research across national borders. Basic research is often segmented and specialized and it is common occurrence that the best partner for cooperation is not found in the same country. In most cases, national grants do not provide for partners in other countries. A scheme where few (academic) partners based in any European country could work together to develop new ideas is missing in the current landscape. This represents a most serious handicap for European research which is supposed to compete with research conducted worldwide.

Concerning the structure of ERC Panels, it is suggested giving a stronger representation to the field of Materials Science and Engineering. This field is currently scattered across several ERC panels. Engineering topics are so far under-represented in these panels which probably results in a rather low number of funded projects despite the beyond any doubt high quality of engineering research in Europe and its particularly strong impact on innovation.



22 How should EU support assist Member States in building up excellence?

It is suggested that the EU should provide common evaluation criteria and evaluation

schemes to the Member States. Having common evaluation schemes should not pose problems for the autonomy of the different governments because science should be

measured according to international standards. This would give a common ground to the different European countries and help raising the overall standards. In summary, something


13

similar to the PISA programme used to evaluate the educational activity at the secondary schools should be established.



23. How should the role of Marie Curie Actions be strengthened in promoting researcher mobility and developing attractive careers?

The attractiveness of research careers depends upon the opportunities for

employment in European academic institutions, public or private research organisations and industry. Young generations need training in leadership, multidisciplinary and transferable skills that will enable them to easily access different job markets. Whi le maintaining and promoting excellence in European science education systems, training in knowledge, technology transfer and entrepreneurship in academic institutions should be reinforced. This can be achieved by incorporating specific training in the curricula and by encouraging joint PhD thesis with industry.

Increasing the number of highly trained engineers is a crucial task for Europe and engineers should be encouraged to follow masters of specialization and technology transfer

courses as well. Likewise, researchers’ mobility between academia and industry (in both directions) is a crucial issue that requires specific policies and organizational measures. Ideally, these measures must be complemented by institutional cooperation between research and technology universities and industry, for instance, by facilitating cross -border funding and investments by different institutions within Europe. Careers partially conducted in industry and partly in academia should be valued.

As for funding, evaluation of careers should not only be based on publications but take into account patents and transfer actions that should be encouraged by providing incentives.


Important, Of some importance, Unimportant, Don't know] 24. What actions should be taken at EU level to further strengthen the role of women in science and innovation?

The level of participation of women in science and innovation in Europe greatly depends on the considered scientific discipline, country and public/private environment.

Measures encouraging gender equality with respect to employment, remuneration and responsibilities should be implemented at national and European level. In this respect,

Scandinavian countries offer examples of good practices that can inspire European and national authorities to work towards achieving a more harmonized and efficient society.




14

25. How should research infrastructures (including EU-wide e-Infrastructures) be

supported at EU level?

The engagement of European universities, research institutions and RTOs in alliances to share access to their different facilities and technological infrastructures to co-develop technologies on a European scale is a clear necessity for the future. Materials Science and Engineering is one of the most prominent and obvious fields for such activity. These alliances would be ideally positioned to develop European platforms for technological development while staying in line with the National regulations in the respective European countries guaranteeing the link to academic training and basic research.

An additional advantage of such alliances would be paving the way for an easier transfer of the most fundamental knowledge to the industry. As previously said, a given percentage of the European industry, mainly with a SMEs structure, is not always keen in collaborating in the development of disruptive and real innovative technologies developed at the Universities and research centres. This type of alliance would serve as ideal platforms for transferring this knowledge since it would encompass the most fundamental research, the applied research and even the development activities.

Concretely, in order to exploit fully the breakthroughs offered by nanotechnology it

is proposed to establish a European open access network of centres for nanofabrication offering state of the art materials synthesis, processing and characterisation facilities with strong links to industry.



26. How should international cooperation with non-EU countries be supported e.g. in terms of priority areas of strategic interest, instruments, reciprocity (including on IPR aspects) or cooperation with Member States?

A number of European national research supporting organisations have bilateral

agreements with e.g. the NSF in the U.S.A. and corresponding organisations in the far eastern Asian countries on supporting collaborative bottom-up research which has been a useful instrument in particular for supporting curiosity driven research. Careful handling of intellectual property rights has to be ensured for any of such international cooperations and this is of particular importance for EU funding of such collaborative activities.


27 Which key issues and obstacles concerning the ERA should EU funding

instruments seek to overcome, and which should be addressed by other (e.g. legislative) measures?


15

EC should ensure flexible and adequate funding for excellent basic and applied research and priority areas that need European-scale efforts (energy, health, transport etc.)

in a timely manner. The major obstacle is still the fragmentation of funding at the European level and

lack of stable funding schemes that cover the whole range of research and innovation activities i.e. from small-scale basic scientific collaborations between academics up to large scale and long term investments in infrastructures of public and private interest.

Complex bureaucracy and slow response to new scientific and technological developments is another bottleneck that threatens to decrease the efficiency and competitiveness of the ERA in the global context.

The lack of a European Patent is the most obvious example of an obstacle for a successful development of the ERA that needs to be promptly addressed by legislative measures.


Important, Of some importance, Unimportant, Don't know] Closing questions

Are there any other ideas of comments which you believe are important for future EU research and innovation funding and are not covered in the Green Paper?

A recent report „Creation and Transfer of Knowledge –The Critical Need for Closer

Ties Between the Academic World and the Private Sector“, by the Committee for Research Structure (FFSK) of the Physics Class of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences chaired by Prof. H. Grimmeiss, presents a strategy to overcome the „European Paradox“. The report highlights that „closer integration of the research phase with the demonstration phase through enhanced prototyping and pre-industrial development in the Academic World“ would impede the high quality curiosity driven research performed at universities. Instead, it is suggested that outstanding research institutes are given the possibility to be transformed into a new form of European Research Institutes (ERIs) with the dedicated aim to establish closer ties between academia and the private sector. ERIs should take over prototyping and development of products, based on inventions made at universities. Scientific experts from the private sector would select ERIs covering primarily areas of interest for European companies. ERIs should be autonomous and financed jointly by the EU and nationally. Chief executive officers should decide on R&D programs, the use of funding and ensure political independence in governance. ERIs should not replace Integrated

Projects or Networks of excellence. In order to make this model feasible funding, governance and intellectual property management would need to be adapted with respect

to current schemes.

Documents

Materials Science and Engineering Expert Committee ...ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/.../materials_science_and_engineering... · Materials Science and Engineering is a trans-disciplinary