Nature Network Italy forum: topic
This is a public forum
How to lobby in Europe and get fundings
Poltronieri Palmiro
Wednesday, 16 July 2008 13:05 UTC
In the recent number of The Scientist, 10th July 2008, there is an interesting article -Science advocacy in an election year (in the USA), in which an interview with the FASEB director, R. Marchase, discusses the plans for getting science on the national agenda.
We should consider that, without involving the heads of our main scientific organizations, EMBO, FEBS, ESF, and on a National level those better connected with the respective Ministry (acting on PON, PNR, FIRB planning), there will be lesser and lesser space for the achievement of additional fundings (or to not schrink the previous amount), and for orientation of research toward specific target to be accomplished.
It is true that here the political campaigns are very short and the discussions are focused on other more urgent topics (oil price, fuels, security, salaries, reduction of public debts).
On the other side, a kind of local antagonism persists between individual Institutions (Parco Padano, IGA, ENEA, AIRC, EIO,Italian MIT) so that each director tends to ask for support of its own specific institute.
We are facing a big transformation, that started last year in different ways, through establishing new selection procedures based on international publications and accomplishments, and reviewing the work made by single scientists, evaluating project results and the accomplished objectives.
But we have to see how this will translate in new technological platforms and new supports for science. As in the Kennedy’s statement, “ask what you can do for your country”, it is not much important what politicians can do for science, but what science leaders can do at a political level to make politics support science.
To this aim, the blogosphere can contribute a lot.
Scientific blogging, the media and the NN can raise questions, propose solutions, suggest new objectives, make grow public awareness, and exert a control on the operate, the intentions and the accomplishments of national and EU funded research.
Recently the italian representatives in Athens obtained the next FEBS meeting to be held in Milan, in 2010, thanks to the italian scientists active in the Board of Directors.
I believethat this type of lobbying is strategic, and at EU level can lead to good results, through the activity of expression of interest, in proposing research topics, project calls, and scientific networking.
However, science is not only biomedical research, so other fields may be left behind.
If you have similar of differnet experiences, please discuss it and add your messages.
-
Replies
-
Hi Palmiro, thank you for starting this thread.
There has been an interesting example of scientific evaluation in our country, just terminated. This was a voluntary exercise promoted by INAF, the Italian Institute for Astrophysics. I wrote about this here.
INAF’s example was an evaluation with no funding cut consequences, a simple exercise. Nevertheless, this is an excellent example for others to follow. Our research system will have to understand, also, that scientific evaluation does not come for free, as one will need to create evaluation committees, support travel of its members, etc. Funds will have to be allocated for evaluation, and these won’t be funds which we could afford cutting. -
Is there any possibility that basic research will have a single possibility in Europe?
A couple of years ago I coordinated a team of a dozen of labs from several countries, including some non-European ones. We answered a call for proposal from the ESF.
I called the project “Amphibio”. It was on the ecology and evolution of terrestriality in vertebrates. Its scientific standards were very high, with top-rated researchers and institutions. Nonetheless, it was unsuccessful.
In another case, I applied to a fund promoted by the EU to facilitate scientific exchange with third-world countries (UCGEB). I was collaborating with a University in Iran. Also in this case, application was unsuccessful.I begin to think that rising funds for purely basic research is almost impossible in Europe.
-
Gianluca
I believe that yes, basic, fundamental research will be possible in Italy, and elsewhere, as long as we will stay away from blind application of impact factors. -
what do you exactly mean by “blind application of impact factors”?
Are you talking of the revision of proposals or of the i.f. of published papers in the cv of the principal investigator? -
No, what I mean is that using the impact factor as a measure of merit of entire scientific fields, as well as the merit of individual scientists, is already driving some Universities to support the fields of study with highest impact factor, at the expense of others, which risk extinction.
-
Gianluca,
thanks for your opinion and experience. I had a bad experience with ESF, and I stated them why they are often wrong. My application came with two other scientists, one french and the other italian. I was in it just because they fund the grant through CNR, and no italian university will see the money if CNR is not involved. They answered me that the profile of proponents was not high enough. Well, find yourself a pubmed search using M. Crespi or ML Chiusano as author.
If the reviewing matter falls in the wrong hands, we have no chance to get to be considered.
On the other hand, it is not a matter of basic science against applied science, but instead it is a “how many applications for that call” matter.
In the evaluation of the most recent EU FP VII call for SME-research, 85 proposal were funded, on a total of 250 that passed the threshold. It means that 250 projects were worth of scientific interest, but the EU Commission is short of money to keep the pace with all the ideas and networks.
coming back the basic research, the CNR funded about 20 “ideas”, a 2007 initiative that sustains independent researchers with 10000 euros/year for two years. On a large economical basis, the Franfurt University “Ideas-Frontiers” Institute, under construction, was created for basic research and science interdisciplinarity. This is because a new approach may uncover findings/methods that on a traditional basis will find it difficult to be seen.
Massimo, you are right, the costs for reviewing authors and project results are high, and often not affordable by small countries (small: intended for minds).
What about the 4 million euro funding of an agency as ARTI, the apulia partner of APRE?
Or those money sucking foundations as Tecnopolis, a society that absorbed most of the public money in the last 10 years…
I wonder how many research projects could have been finished will these euros.
Impact factors:
At least, for the CNR, Departments are classified in research fields, and the Impact Factors they use for evaluation are different: food technologists have journals with IFs low as 2.5, or lesser, an the relevance scores are adjusted to these fields. -
Are there European funding agencies for ecological and evolutionary research?
Can the Italian CNR be involved?I’m sorry to focus on my own interests, but I need to cope with empirical problems…!
-
The LESC commettee within ESF surely supports any good idea for networking between different EU contries. I already posted about it
http://network.nature.com/groups/bioactives/notice/2008/07/28/call-for-networking-at-eu-level
Selected project proposals will be recommended by ESF Standing Committees for submission for funding to ESF Member Organisations, i.e. to CNR of Italy, in your case.
A strategic proposal needs to be well written, to show scientific advancements, and to involve high level partners, in order to get highest evaluation scores.
I would suggest you to find an association with a CNR Institute that works in your field, and to be patient, since these calls are for the next 12 or 18 months from now.
http://www.esf.org/activities/research-networking-programmes.html
Otherelse, you may try a Strarting Grant, VIIth EU Framework Programme, The call deadline is in december. -
thank you very much indeed for your suggestions
Gianluca
-
