1 7th Framework Programme “Ideas”

2   Basic research has an important impact on economic performance   Europe is not making the most of its research capabilities   A new funding mechanism is needed at European level to reinforce excellence based on competitive support to individual teams sole criterion for selection should be scientific excellence   European added value through impact of Europe- scale funding *Europe and Basic Research, January 2004, COM(2004)9; following Mayor Expert Group Report The background*

3   Investigator-driven research   All areas of science and technology   Excellence through competition   Scientific autonomy   Minimal bureaucracy The basic concepts

4   Cooperation - thematic research areas   Ideas - frontier research (ERC)   People - human resources   Capacities:   Infrastructures   SMEs   Regions of knowledge   Research potential   Science in society FP7 ( ) – Building the Europe of knowledge

5 Key principles for FP7 implementation:   Flexibility (with continuity)   Rationalisation (better balance between risks and controls)   Coherence, consistency and user- friendliness Simplification

6   Financial Perspectives : Commission proposal for new budget structure for growth   A necessary precondition to meet the ambitions of FP7   Research to grow from € 5 bn to € 10 bn per year   ERC = € 1.5 bn (average) A doubled budget for research

7   Frontier research   Support to individual teams, to promote excellence through Europe-wide competition   Dedicated implementation structure (Executive Agency)   Independent scientific governance (Scientific Council)   Simplified grant mechanism The “Ideas” programme in the FP7 proposal

8   Commission “Guidelines” communication, published in June 2004   Favourable responses from:   Council of Ministers, Presidency conclusions November 2004   European Parliament (Locatelli) resolution March 2005   Economic and Social Committee, Committee of Regions State of play in the political debate

9   A new term is needed to avoid outmoded distinctions:   Between “basic” and “applied” research   Between “science” and “technology”   Between “traditional” disciplines   “Frontier research” reflects the concern to go beyond these categories, and also to promote new and emerging, high risk research Why “frontier research”

10 European added value through Europe-wide competition:   Encouraging and supporting the finest talent   Selecting the most promising research areas   Giving European visibility to research leaders   Catalysing the creation of a more efficient European research system Individual teams

11   Autonomous (independent of political interest)   Efficient (low bureaucracy) But also….   Accountable (scientific, financial)   Feasible Executive agency; possible Article 171 structure later Implementation requirements

12 Implementation structure ERC – European Research Council Commission * Created by Commission decision * * Under the responsibility of the Commission Preparation of work programme Set up of peer review: pool of reviewers, nomination of review panels, evaluation guidelines Oversight of the evaluation procedure Annual scientific report Information and support to applicants Reception / eligibility of proposals Organisation and execution of evaluation Selection decision Scientific and financial follow-up of contracts Annual implementation report Approval of work programme, as defined by the Scientific Council Instruction to implement work programme Approval of annual implementation report Information to programme committee Scientific Council* Externalised tasks (exec agency)**

13   Independent; respected personalities, reflecting the full scope of European research   Responsible for scientific strategy, oversight and guarantee of quality in scientific decision-making   Prior to FP7 decision, would act as advisory body in the development of the “Ideas” programme ERC Scientific Council

14   Mandate to identify members of a future ERC Scientific Council   Independent group, outstanding scientists and scholars   Consulting the scientific community   Interim report published 21 March ERC Identification Committee

15 Frontier Research grant: Key principles An investment in research and research leaders: Financially attractive Administratively simple Flexible in application Transparent

16 Frontier research grant: a scenario Financing model - two options: flat rate approach: not cost-based, therefore simplified system for accounting cost-based approach (100% direct costs) Contractual aspects: “grant not contract” Reporting requirements: must reflect nature of scientific research, not project micromanagement Payments structure: for regular and efficient project financing

17   Excellence and transparency are key principles   Permanent pool of accredited peer reviewers needed (= Europe’s best scientists and scholars)   High throughput, quasi-continuous processes may be necessary   Scientific Council should set parameters and oversee the process Peer review process

AprilFP7 proposal JuneIdentification committee names Decision on financial perspective? Sept Specific programme proposal Rules of participation proposal AutumnScientific Council starts work 2006 Decision on FP7 Decision on Agency structure 2007 Funding starts Timetable (provisional)

19 Further information Basic research website: ERC Identification committee: