microkelvin kickoff meeting helsinki 2 th - 4 th april 2009 maria douka european commisssion, dg rtd
TRANSCRIPT
MICROKELVIN Kickoff Meeting
Helsinki
2 th - 4 th April 2009
Maria DoukaEuropean Commisssion, DG
RTD
Definition of ResearchInfrastructures
• Facilities, resources, services usedby scientific community for– Development of leading-edge research– Knowledge transmission, knowledge exchanges
and knowledge preservation• Includes
– Major equipment– Scientific collections, archives and structured
information– ICT-based infrastructures– Entities of a unique nature, used for research
Objectives of the Community
Research Infrastructures actions
Tackling better fragmentation by optimising the use and development of the best research infrastructures infrastructures existingexisting in Europe
(Integrating Activities)
Catalysing effect towards the Construction or major upgrade of Research Infrastructures
Developing a vision for the next 10-20 years by fostering capacity building and excellence (Support to Policy Development)
Reminder:Today’s budgetary
constraints
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
Budget available (M€) 215 160 55 80 510
Design studies 20 20
Construction - preparatory phase
45 45
Construction - implementation phase
35? 35? 70?
Support measures 10 5 10 25
Integrating activities 160 100 45 45 350
Preparatory Phase
10 topics corresponding to the 10 new ESFRI projects in the Roadmap 2008
EISCAT_3D upgrade EPOS SIAEOS ECCSEL EMBRC EU-Openscreen EuroBioImaging BSL4 Laboratory EMFL CTA
Budget of 45 M€, call to be published in Sep. 2009
Environmental Sciences
Energy
Biological and Medical Sciences
Materials & Analytical Facilities
Physical Sci. & Engineering
Support Measures
ERA-NET supporting cooperation of MS and AS for RIs (policy) in all S&T fields (from 1 to 2 M€)
Studies, conferences and roundtables for RI policy in all S&T fields (from 0.2 to 1 M€)
Supporting impact assessments of RIsStrengthening cooperation of European RIs with
third countriesSupporting other important policy developments
Budget of 10 M€, call to be published in Sep. 2009
Integrating ActivitiesOverall strategy
A targeted approach:
To focus on strategic priorities
To make the most efficient use of the very limited budget available
Identification of topics
A draft list of topics, based on:Scientific landscapes established by ESFRI RWGsPublished national roadmaps (DK, FR, IE, NO, ES, SE, UK; as
well as third countries such as AU, USA) Other policy documents (CERN, SCAR, etc.)Currently funded I3/Integrating Activity projects and
Coordination Actions (FP6 and FP7)Unfunded proposals and/or topics from last bottom-up calls
A one-day workshop with 40 high-level experts, to ensure that these topics correspond to recognised needs and priorities
Further input from the FP7 thematic priorities, and DG INFSO
Expert workshop
Work carried out in 6 thematic sub-groups
Experts were asked to:Give a motivated opinion in support for or
against the proposed topicsGive advice, when appropriate, for better
defining the focus and phrasing of the proposed topics
Indicate any missing priority topicHelp establish the timing of the topics for the
3 calls
Integrating Activities Approach
• Three calls for proposals : For each of the three calls, a list of defined topics
Each topic corresponding to one project, for one class of Research Infrastructures e.g.: "Research Vessels", "Virus archives", "Historical archives“…
More topics will be listed in the three calls foreseen, than can be funded (~40), to ensure competition
• Maximum EC contribution: 10 M€, for WP 2010 (Duration of projects: 4 years)
For WP 2011, possibility of 15-20 M€ restricted to analytical research infrastructures serving large communities of scientists from diverse scientific fields.
Distribution of the topics between calls
Call APublished Sep. 2009
Call BJan. 2011
Call CJan. 2012
36 topics
Expected number of funded projects: ~ 18-20
Budget: ~ 160 M€ Budget: ~ 100 M€ Budget: ~90 M€
21 topics
Expected number of funded projects: ~ 10
21 topics
Expected number of funded projects: ~ 12
Timing for WP 2010
By the end of February 2009:Input needed from PC Members: Informal
agreement, with possible corrections to the topic descriptions, and possible missing priority topics
Input from PCs of Thematic priorities
6 March: Draft WP sent to Programme Committee
20 March: Discussion of draft WP at PC meeting 30 March: Finalisation of draft WP May-June: ISC and consultation of the PC 29 July: Commission’s decision 4 September: Publication of Call (deadline 4
Dec.)
Next steps
January-February 2010: Evaluation of proposals from the 2009 call (closed on Dec. 4)
March 2010: Results presented to PC Members
April 2010: WP 2011 to be finalisedIt is very critical to already reflect on topics for
WP 2011The proposed timing would allow to take into
consideration the results from the 2009 call
Impact of EU Support Actions for RI in FP6
Economic Impact
Key findings:● Some evidence of projects having had an impact on relations with
industry partners ● Changes in the level of industry participation not prominent ● Joint projects with industry were realised within few projects ● Some evidence of industry having benefited from the RIs ● Little evidence of projects having produced commercialisable
outcomes● Some evidence of scientists moving to employment in industry Key conclusions:● Difficult to determine factors of the FP6 RI programme that
influence achievement of economic and industry impacts● Investment linked with construction and design positively
influenced industry participation in projects
Impact of EU Support Actions for RI in FP6
Societal impactsKey findings:● Most projects had public dissemination strategy in place● A minority of projects had realised some form of liaison with
local communities● Concrete examples of wider societal impacts were very
limited and tended to focus on medical advances, the environment and/or safety issues
Key conclusions:● Evidence of possible future realisation of impacts upon
wider society but little actual impact systematically being achieved
● Liaison with local communities is important but ultimately not enough to ensure wider societal impacts from this type of investment
Impact of EU Support Actions for RI in FP6
European Added Value & Structuring of ERA
Key findings:● European funding enabled certain activities that would not
have been possible otherwise ● Commission funding increased RIs’ visibility that helped to
establish research fields at European level● Researchers from New Member States were more involved
in European communities and networks than before● There was an increase in the degree to which researchers
networked● The European support has enabled scientists, particularly in
the NMS, to undertake new, more or better research
Impact of EU Support Actions for RI in FP6
European Added Value & Structuring of ERA
Key conclusions:• EC funding increased the visibility of participant
organisations and generated operational as well as wider European Added Value through support to activities otherwise not viable at European or International level
• EC funding enforced the structuring of the ERA via the strengthening and support to networking of researchers and through encouraging involvement of New Member states
Scientific Excellence
Implementation Impacts
ScienceFrontier research
Researchservices
Knowledgecreation
EuropeEuropean S&T
challenges GovernanceEuropean leadership
GrowthGrand
ChallengesResearch-
innovation bridgeSocio-
economic impacts