Eu science funding

Top researchers from anywhere in the baby's brain, as never seen before haumea, the dwarf planet reveals its ringadvancing science and serving as a role modelhighlighted projects of erc starting grants 2017computational biology: spotlight on erc projectsearly black holes may have grown in fits and spurtsten years ten portraitsspotlight on erc projects studying migration and asylumfood sharing puts sustainability on the ations for erc starting grants 2018 – facts and newsletter autumn omers discover ring around dwarf planet recording ever of premature new-born baby's brain activity with ultrasounds – a revolution in about erc up to 1. Existing erc grant holders to bring their research ideas closer to up to 10€ million for 6  address ambitious research questions that can only be answered by the coordinated work of a small group of 2-4 principal onal researchers wishing to work or gain experience in an erc grantee’s ation for ame ongoing ne: 14 nov ation for ction guide for using ame ongoing ne: 16 jan 2018 | 18 apr 2018 | 11 sept ation for ne: 15 feb official deadlines are only those indicated on the participant 10th anniversary international convention centre, pretoria south and access all information on erc funded out more key facts at statistical data on evaluated proposals and selected ng your about the open access rules that apply to your grant and find many useful -up and develop your out about hiring team members and opportunities for early-career scientists to temporarily visit erc icating your tips, links and useful contacts to help you communicate your erc-funded ing research in novel years, ten ics: the power of visual =science²: the power of tomorrow's : beyond the first by step to erc it takes to win an erc i got my erc bringing great ideas to nts and al contact ntly asked president and scientific council >. The erc’s governing body, the scientific council defines the organisation’s funding strategy and methodologies. But as we awoke last friday morning, there seems to have been unanimity about one thing: that the possibility we’ll vote to leave the eu would be a disaster for british science. Love the polyglot melting pot in my lab (although we few brits are put to shame by the language skills of everyone else): our team meetings often spend almost as much time comparing idioms as discussing science. And the cosmopolitan range of food brought to parties is johnson appointed universities and science there is also much that anyone contemplating supporting a brexit should consider of the most prestigious and valuable research grants in europe are awarded by the european research council, an eu initiative. Not only do these launch the best british scientists onto the world stage, but british scientists have earned more back in grants than the uk has contributed in every year of the scheme’s there are the eu marie slodowska-curie mobility fellowships, which support eu scientists to come to britain as postdoctoral fellows – the main drivers and heroes of bench science in many disciplines. Many end up doing research in british labs, and those that go abroad bring back training and an research funding: it’s like robin hood in pattern is clear. Given our public sector funding difficulties, and the understandably low priority research has in the political arena, we simply cannot afford to lose out on such a successful and empowering pot of eu even that is not the most important argument. More than in most other fields, success in science absolutely depends on movement of people. I am old enough to remember arguing with ministers in the thatcher government about whether they should have any role in supporting science at all. I make no point about opera, but since then party politics has largely evaporated from the principle of support for science. And financially, the uk wins the eu science one example of an eu initiative illustrates its huge potential. Their goal: to transform their chance discovery into a whole new family of technologies and don’t all win nobels, and most eu funding is not so generous. The myths about british science after an eu ing the myths about british science after an eu this extract from their evidence to the house of lords select committee on science and technology, dr mike galsworthy (left) and dr rob davidson explore the relationship between eu membership and the effectiveness of science, research and innovation in the tively, the eu remains the world leader in terms of its global share of science researchers (22. This would be a fairly moot bragging point, were it not for how the eu science programme has managed to network the european countries into a collaborative engine which serves as a hub of science in the wider world. This, in turn, has benefited uk science prowess eu is now a community of scientific talent which can flow between countries without visas or points systems and which can assemble bespoke constellations of cutting-edge labs, industry and small businesses to tackle challenges local and global. Across the 500m populace of the eu (plus the associated countries which buy into the eu science program), there is a capacity to pick’n’mix the best labs to do the job – and apply for funding from a single source. Photo: njhdiver via a flickr creative commons -first century science often has to go big to go small and increase the resolution of our understandings and capacity.

This is more than an appealing narrative: the drive to big networked science is also borne out in the data on the rising internationalisation of science and the associated impact. Below we demonstrate how the international networks uniquely supported by eu funding have driven the uk into global pole position for sing the 1980s, global research has become rapidly more international. Reproduced with kind permission from dr jonathan rate of increase can be compared to the us, which has seen a rise in internationally co-authored papers from 6% in the 1980s to 33% ationalisation and le sources have identified international co-authored papers as having substantially higher impact than domestic-only 2: correlation of international co-authorship share and field-weighted uced with kind permission from dr jonathan uk’s strong lead over the us on proportion of international output interacts with the added impact of international output – resulting in the uk science base now measuring as more productive than that of the us. International collaborations give the uk the research quality 3: how the uk’s rise in high-impact international collaborations has helped the uk push ahead of the us recently in science productivityreproduced with kind permission from dr jonathan much of this increase in internationality can be attributed to participation in the eu science programme? Approximately 10% of uk public funding for science came from the eu during 2007-2014, this amount has been rising sharply recently and, pertinently, horizon 2020 funds are predominantly for international collaborations. Therefore, it is not too adventurous a conclusion to state that participation in the eu science programme looks highly likely to have helped the uk science base become more productive than the benefits of a pan-european science programme to eu and uk the cross-border collaborations themselves providing more impact than domestic-only work, there are multiple additional properties of a pan-european science programme that confer increased science capacity and productivity to its members:The presence of a pan-european fund helps prevent duplication of spread of good practice is facilitated 1) by collaboration and researcher interactions and 2) by adoption of successful policies from one country (e. Open access, open data) into a funding body present in multiple a large comprehensive programme covering the gamut of research and innovation areas sets a common framework for funding categorisation and comparisons; a spine against which national funding schemes can be benchmarked. Without the eu common pot of funds and common administration, a uk lab looking to partner with, for example, teams in four other countries would encounter serious trouble in finding full funding. Similarly, all five partners attempting to obtain matched funds from their governments means five times the administrative loads, aligning five timelines of funding applications and work, and five times the jeopardy in getting the monies through. If each of the five applications had a 20% chance of success, then the overall chance of getting funding for all five partners would be 0. To adequately address the role of uk science in the debate, we must compare realistic models of uk science continuing within the eu against realistic models of uk science moving to a position outside the an analogy: when evaluating the utility of any new drug or treatment, the medicine at hand must be compared not only with a placebo, but also with the best competing medicines on the market. In the case of eu membership, we must compare the current trajectory within the eu against more than flat-cash reimbursement of eu funds through uk funding mechanisms (placebo). We must compare uk science in continued eu membership with the most seductive alternatives being offered on the summarise those alternatives; we, have widely encountered two notions:Firstly, that because the uk is a net contributor to the eu budget, then the uk could leave the eu and the surplus money gained from the transition could be channelled into research and innovation. In short, leaving the eu frees up money for uk ly, that because non-eu countries such as norway and israel can have full participation in eu science programmes such as framework 7 and horizon 2020, therefore there is no threat to the uk’s relationship to the eu science programmes continuing as is. On leaving, we simply buy back into eu science programme participation as the other countries ed, the claims amount to an appealing package: on leaving the eu, the uk could continue reaping all the benefits of full membership on the eu science programme whilst having significant extra cash-in-hand to boost public investment in r&i at the national these notions are dangerously – and demonstrably – availability of money on a departure from the is a claim by the campaign vote leave (which use the slogan “vote leave – take control”) that a brexit will free up money for r&i investment11. This strongly counters any claim that voting to leave the eu provides immediate funds for a shot in the arm of national science. The extra money simply will not be there for science as the uk economy is hit by huge transition costs. Even if it were the case that there were free cash-in-hand on a brexit, the individuals offering this money to science (as part of their campaign) would have no power over its allocation. None of them have any track record in science policy or impact on national science budget allocations.

A huge transition from the fp7 to the horizon 2020 timeframes concerns the use of regional development funds alongside the science programmes to support research and innovation capacity building. So while eastern (and southern) europe’s under-competitiveness does not interfere with the eu’s criterion of funding “excellence” in science (a decision which benefits the uk greatly), nevertheless, it is important that those eu countries which came into the competitive funding environment late receive adequate support to be competitive. Otherwise brain drain and disillusionment will drop capacity in those regions and for the eu ore, the new focus of the commission to dedicate regional development funds to r&i means that the whole eu ecosystem of science is strengthened in all parts. The uk, as the eu science programme’s leading player – benefits strongly in the long run when it can participate in and lead (more than any other country) ever more capable teams from an ever stronger region. Much of the “net contribution” being promised by vote leave to uk r&i is currently deployed to strengthen the pan-eu science hub that boosts the uk’s global leadership in science. Case study of switzerland as a model for uk science outside the ately, this discussion is not purely hypothetical, but rather based largely on the precedent of switzerland’s relationship with the eu science programme. Given switzerland’s high competence in science, geographical location in europe, non-eu status and political difficulties with issues of eu immigration – switzerland is a helpful model for the uk’s re-negotiation of science programme membership following a brexit:Synopsis of the swiss-eu science story. Switzerland also funds swiss participants in eu collaborative programmes directly at national level, requiring parallel domestic administration and an agreement to accept all funding decisions made in brussels, effectively losing control of its national science budget. Switzerland must contribute to h2020 based on gdp and population and has no role in developing funding case study of switzerland represents an instructive set of circumstances for the uk with regard to horizon 2020 access post-brexit. This has the double disadvantage of replicating a complete administration structure in the uk that operates on eu financial and legal rules without any role in creating those rules, and it must agree to a single evaluation decision made in brussels to avoid damaging the partner-worthiness of uk participants with an additional uk level of requirement to agree to implement funding decisions made in brussels will ensure that the uk cannot control budget allocated to such collaborations. The uk will still be contributing to eu science financially, it will have no control over domestic budget for collaborative research and it will have to sustain a parallel administration structure. This combination of factors means that the uk cannot make a simple financial calculation on financial contribution to eu science nor estimate how much it would retain to fund uk research 4: the uk is now the leading country in terms of number of projects won from horizon ant considerations pertaining exclusively to the uk’s relationship with the science programmes must be addressed upfront. Unlike switzerland, norway, turkey or any of the non-eu countries that hope to become full associated countries on the eu science programme – the uk has a lot more to lose. The uk is currently a full member of the eu, meaning that it has a political say in the development of the science programme. It is also the leading player on the eu science programme, winning more grants than any other country during horizon 2020 so far. Combination of the political input (and the uk has, due to its population size, the third largest delegation to the european parliament), and the uk’s science prowess means that the uk has the kind of status and power on the programme that no non-eu participating country has. Whether they are eu members or not, they would not command much of a political say on overarching science direction and management. The eu has already introduced and used the concept of partial association with switzerland and would do the same with the uk, tailoring a deal to maximise its own impact on swiss science of a partial access gh it is early days in horizon 2020, nevertheless, data available clearly show the disruption caused to swiss science performance on the eu program (figure 5). Swiss sources (private communication) report a declined trust in swiss research partners and rapid reduction in their engagement in collaboration – the swiss science sector is reliant on immigration and its innovative performance is likely to decline, particularly if it must completely exit horizon 2020 membership in ing eu membership: is the eu headed in the right direction for uk science?

Whether one considers the bold commitment to increasing science investment despite shrinking overall budgets, a holistic and well-articulated vision for science, closer democratic accountability for the budgeting and priority-setting within science, success in linking universities with small businesses, open data, bold infrastructure, the european research council and plans for a similar innovation council, or newfound transparency around its science programme outputs – it is clear the eu has discovered an appetite for science leadership. Uk politicians even act as a barrier to uk science’s capacity to fully harness the benefits of the eu. The low participation rate of uk smes on horizon 2020 relative to our universities is directly attributable to very poor advertising through channels such as bis and innovate pride that british politicians may feel about the quality of british science in comparison to other countries in the eu should have their mood strongly tempered by the realisation that in the eyes of many british scientists, the eu is stealing a march on the uk in science policy leadership. A funding increase to a 3% target) often circulates perennially with inaction by the parties in power and their post represents the views of the authors and not those of the brexitvote blog, nor the mike galsworthy is an independent consultant in research and innovation policy and a visiting researcher at london school of hygiene & tropical medicine (lshtm). We should ignore noise from vote al development funding – this is a long way from the question of funding science. Moreover, such an overtly partisan political approach by scientists4eu risks alienating uk voters/taxpayers and damaging the reputation of science in the uk. Your approach is making me question this science funding – and i’m much more pro-science and development funding than the average discuss switzerland’s recent problems with horizon 2020. As i understood it, funding decisions are made on the merits of the case (as it should be for any scientific program), not on political entally, there is no reason why political union should be a pre-requisite to scientific collaboration. Ii) that’s too high a price to pay; we should withdraw from horizon etc and spend it on r&d as we see er 24, 2015 at 11:26 am - addition to the above reply, its not mentioned that academic science at universities in this country are flooded with european workers (all being paid from uk tax payers money) because they all speak english as a second language and the universities are after as many international students as they can in order to receive their higher often the case that most workers in university groups dont come from this country, some groups are entire comprised of europeans and through their vast numbers excluded british students from having those jobs. Students are ‘selected’ and offered places on higher degrees and research positions based solely upon the funding available (the majority of which is from the british government and predominantly disbursed through the research councils or higher education funding councils), or industry (including european industry) and a significant (but relatively small) additional element is from charity organisations (e. A british student who meets the experience, training and other quality criteria will get an opportunity to continue their training and career in science, if the funding is available. If any british student fails to succeed in finding a place, it is only because there is no funding available for their chosen option or they are uncompetitive. Membership of the eu has only increased funding resources for further degrees and research positions considerably increasing the opportunity for british students. I know, a number of my own students and postdoc’s have done exactly that; i also know many other research supervisors across the uk for whom the same is true (it is indeed very common in science). Many of the mechanisms for enhancing the opportunities for british students to enhance their career and help them with their first foot on the career ladder are dependant upon membership of the eu funding systems that provide for this. As any other member state, or be we leave the eu, the only way the loss of opportunity for young british scientists could be made up is with increased funding from the british government, along with all the other calls on its resources arising form loss of support from europe (farming, healthcare, social services, regional development, servicing the depressed economy etc. Another point you haven’t considered, scientists follow the funding, it is a necessary element of career advancement (if you don’t have funding, you can’t do science). And of course, you can always find someone more experienced for any job if theres the whole of europe or the world to chose from, it doesnt mean theyre better and those who dont get the job are worse (or ‘uncompetitive’ as you put it), but rather the odds have been stacked against uk applicants through vast skilled labour baloney to say that there would be a drop in standards as anyone who’s been involved in recruitment will tell you there are large numbers of skilled and motivated applicants from this country alone for science ers always complain that theres too many applicants with very few exceptions and that will continue as graduates and phd’s are produced in large numbers every european workers filling large numbers of university jobs (and i’ve worked with alot of them) are not professors, the brightest and best, filling vacancies no-one wants to do or any better than uk applicants, and indeed by training more of the graduates who live here, its more plausible that uk commercial and academic science sectors (not to mention intellectual property) would be better also cant deny that universities are full of european workers and for every one of them has taken a valuable skilled job, thats a job someone from the uk could and would have also not considered that if a european worker that is funded by the uk taxpayer through research councils funds, moves back to another country then a not inconsiderable amount of wealth (and scientific training) is taken out of the speculation on ‘scientist flight’ is the same as what was threatened from the banks about ‘banker flight’. If an academic is forced to take that option then it probably shows that they are operating in an academic bubble kept alive through public funding (which ive seen time and time again) and their research field and career produces nothing of any value in the real , i’ve worked in universities for years as you can see by the amount of europeans filling up 50% or more of a lot of university groups here compared to the trickle of brits whove gone to study or work in europe, the traffic is largely one-way (which is fuelled by english being a second language to a lot of european workers) and the vast majority of uk students and scientists dont work abroad and dont see any benefit, which they soon find out when they end up competing against european workers at interviews.

If you’re concerned about science, a vote to remain is very likely to be the safer […]. Funding to science – loads of science funding comes from the eu – will this continue if we leave? We could potentially lose the synergies and opportunities gained from working together, not to mention the big wad of investment money we get to support pioneering science research studies. This isnt uncommon and ive visited a number of other groups who employ virtually no-one from this using your figures, more than a half of the phd opportunities are being taken by non-uk graduates on around £50k (for the 3 year project) and a quarter/third of all academic staff being non-uk nationals on at least £30k/year for each postdoc, there are no shortage of applicants for these jobs and it amounts up to hundreds of millions of pounds in funding and training given to overseas workers; vasts amounts of money and opportunities that could have been given to equally capable uk s the most alarming fact is that through giving most of the phd opportunities to non-uk graduates and training up the rest of the world, the future situation will only get worse as they will either go on to take the few post-doc jobs in the group when they finish, uk commercial jobs, or could very well end up in rival research groups or rival commercial jobs in their own country. This is a problem that most group leader academics seem to be blissfully unaware of because theyre in well paid permanent jobs and the mass oversupply of overseas graduates and workers which theyre training doesnt affect them at their churlish of you to use the word thieves to try and characterise my response on eu workers as the point was and is that as we are losing £30 million/day to the eu, money we get in science funding should be used directly in the interest of the people of this country by giving the valuable skilled science jobs and phd science training to uk graduates rather vast amounts of workers from the eu and other countries, nearly all of whom are inherently no better than the uk graduates that they ch and education – eu referendum with 22, 2016 at 5:32 pm - reply. Regularly point to norway and switzerland to support their arguments, but there are, as usual, many myths (particularly with regard to science […]. Blackwood mp: vital that government reassures science industry in wake of eu referendum result | seek a 25, 2016 at 4:07 pm - reply. Dr mike galsworthy and dr rob davidson from the london school of economics and political science gave evidence to the committee explaining the complexities the situation regarding […]. Billion a year and benefit from networks of international researchers” and that “[c]ollectively, the eu remains the world leader in terms of its global share of science researchers …” so it seems fair to be concerned about the role that uk research will play going forward. 1, 2016 at 10:26 pm - ng as one who lives in switzerland, i was disgusted by the behaviour of the eu, trying those bully tactics of kicking switzerland out of the education funding about the day after a democratic vote was taken. Was nothing but impressed by the smooth and reliable way in which the swiss reacted through their own funding. Is still good science being done in switzerland, without the massive red tape of the eu which makes the conducting of science secondary to form filling in, and i suspect less of the projects funded are 2, 2016 at 4:01 pm - s tuition fees in leiden 2000 euros in eu 19000 euros non eu i would laugh at the view point that people voted for brexit ‘ for their children ‘ if i didn’t feel sick . There is an absolutely excellent blog post on this here – this is from evidence given to the house of lords select committee on science and technology by […]. Briefing on life sciences and science funding - andrew dismore er 2, 2016 at 4:23 pm - from washington: march for science - don't stop now - 25, 2017 at 6:33 pm - reply. The world’s best infrastructure for scientific research (some key issues here are considered in this extract from evidence given by dr mike galsworthy and dr rob davidson to the house of lords select committee on science […]. Notify me of new posts by most popular brexit vote has caused a significant rise in prices, especially is not the will of the british people – it never has n’s approach to brexit is a textbook example of failed strategic was not the voice of the working class nor of the uneducated – it was of the squeezed ’s all relatives: the trouble with post-brexit family reunification h politics and an politics & of britain in library britain & europe : britain & ibe to our weekly ing the myths about british science after an eu ing the myths about british science after an eu this extract from their evidence to the house of lords select committee on science and technology, dr mike galsworthy (left) and dr rob davidson explore the relationship between eu membership and the effectiveness of science, research and innovation in the tively, the eu remains the world leader in terms of its global share of science researchers (22. Notify me of new posts by most popular brexit vote has caused a significant rise in prices, especially is not the will of the british people – it never has n’s approach to brexit is a textbook example of failed strategic was not the voice of the working class nor of the uneducated – it was of the squeezed ’s all relatives: the trouble with post-brexit family reunification h politics and an politics & of britain in library britain & europe : britain & ibe to our weekly currently have javascript disabled in your web browser, please enable javascript to view our website as are the instructions of how to enable javascript in your much research funding does the uk get from the eu and how does this compare with other countries? This represents the fourth largest share in the terms of funding awarded on a competitive basis in the period 2007 – 2013 (framework programme 7), the uk was the second largest recipient after germany, securing €6. Between the percentage proportion of framework programme 7 funding received and the percentage proportion of eu gdp for each eu member state.

This is demonstrated by figure 8 that adjusts total eu research and development funding (fp7 and structural funds) for gdp. The uk, germany and france are shown to receive proportionally less overall funding when their gdp is taken into ence between the percentage proportion of eu funding on for research, development and innovation (framework programme 7 and structural funds) received and the percentage proportion of eu gdp for each eu member state. 2007 – n 2007 – 2013, 3,454 uk-based researchers received funding from marie skłodowska-curie actions to work overseas and 8,120 overseas researchers came to work in uk organisations with marie skłodowska-curie actions g at framework programme 7 funding more closely, in terms of funding from the european research council (erc) and marie skłodowska-curie actions (msca), which are awarded solely on the basis of scientific excellence, the uk was the top performer among participating based researchers received €1665 million in erc grants over fp7 2007 – 2013, which was 22. Of the programme’s total bution of european research council (erc) and marie sklodowska-curie actions (mscas) funding among participating countries.