Horizon magazine : 30 years EU research framework programmes 1984-2014. Special issue, March 2015.
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: EU programme, industrial research, innovation, new technology, scientific progress, scientific research

K

I

-

0

2

-

1

4

-

9

9

2

-

E

N

-

C

HORIZON

magazine

Exclusive insight

into the science

shaping the future

of Europe

Special Issue

March 2015

Daily updates

Bringing you the cutting-edge

of EU-funded research

Written by independent

journalists on behalf of the

European Commission’s

Directorate-General for

Research and Innovation.

www.horizon-magazine.eu

In-depth features,

interviews and analysis

years

EU Research Framework
Programmes
1984 -2014

Research and
Innovation

Contact: European Commission,
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation,
B-1049 Brussels
http://ec.europa.eu/research/
E-mail: RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting
on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use
which might be made of the following information.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015

44 – 210 x 275 mm

ISBN 978-92-79-40825-0
doi 10.2777/96026

© European Union, 2015

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
For use/reproduction of third-party copyright material specified
as such permission must be obtained from the copyright holder(s).

Images:
Cover & cover 2 © Fotolia
Page 1 © UE
Pages 2-3 © Fotolia
Page 5 © Walter Mönig
Pages 6-7 © Fotolia
Page 8 © UE
Page 9 © Image courtesy of ITER
Page 11, Roger Harris ©Science Photo Library
Pages 12 and 14, Ezéquiel Scagnetti © European Union
Page 15 © Shutterstock
Pages 16-17 & 18 (left) © Fotolia
Page 18 (right) © Labo. Escourolle/Eurelios/Science Photo Library
Page 20 © Fotolia
Page 21 © European Parliament
Pages 22-23, Thomas Vanden Driessche © European Union
Page 24 © European Parliament
Page 26, Christian Jungeblodt © Reporters/Laif
Page 31, Guy Stubbs © European Union
Page 32 © www.fotostudio-staudigl.at
Page 33, Claire Barrault © ECHO
Pages 34-35 © Fotolia
Page 39 © CSI-S Expilly
Page 40 © Fotolia
Page 41, Allison-Jacobel © Tropics
Page 42 (left) © ANIMATE4.COM/Science Photo Library
Page 42 (right), Jim Yost © Science Photo Library
Page 43 © Bruno Klein
Page 44 © Fotolia
Cover 3 & back cover © Fotolia

1

2

10

16

22

26

30

34

40

E D I T O R I A L

O V E R V I E W

I N D U S T R Y & E C O N O M Y

S O C I E T Y

E U R O P E A N R E S E A R C H A R E A

E N L A R G E M E N T

I N T E R N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I O N

R E S E A R C H E R S

F R O N T I E R R E S E A R C H

E D I T O R I A L

The very first Europe-wide Framework Programme for research was launched

30 years ago to bring together expertise from across the European
Community, as it was then known, and make Europe more competitive in
key technologies.

Since then, the Framework Programmes have become a major part of research
cooperation in Europe, growing progressively in size, scope and ambition. Their
objective has also evolved from supporting cross-border collaboration in research
and technology to now encouraging a truly European coordination of activities and
policies. The reason for this is simple: research, technology and innovation are at the
core of Europe’s economy and are vital for a successful society.

Today, Horizon 2020, the eighth Framework Programme, is the biggest and most

ambitious with a budget of EUR 80 billion.

It represents a significant step forward because it brings all EU support for
research and innovation together within a single programme. With Horizon 2020,
research and innovation will play a vital role in European Commission
President Jean-Claude Juncker’s agenda to strengthen Europe’s
competitiveness and boost jobs and growth, and will help
us find the answers to major societal challenges such as

health, climate change and energy security.

This special issue of Horizon magazine celebrates
30 years of the Framework Programmes. Through
articles and interviews with key players, it tells the
story of their conception and evolution, highlighting
some of their major achievements through the years.

But this special issue is not an exhaustive review
of the Framework Programmes – you would need
far more than 44 pages to describe all the major
achievements of these programmes, and do justice to
the thousands of people who have contributed to their
success. Nonetheless, we hope it will give you a flavour of this
flagship European endeavour, which has gone from strength to

strength over the last 30 years.

We would like to pay tribute to the many people who helped to make this
possible, including Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, who has been instrumental
in shaping Horizon 2020.

And finally, we wish to acknowledge the thousands of people whose talents
have turned Framework Programme funding into excellent research and new
technologies and products that improve our lives. They deserve our greatest thanks.

Carlos Moedas
European Commissioner
for Science, Research and Innovation

Robert-Jan Smits
Director-General,
Directorate-General for Research
and Innovation, European Commission

HORIZON magazine 1

O V E R V I E W

EUROPE’S FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES

A KEY ELEMENT
of research policy in Europe

B Y P E T E R O ’ D O N N E L L & B E N D E I G H T O N

Over the last 30 years a sense of deliberate
collaboration in research has emerged.

2 HORIZON magazine

European research funding evolved from

a handful of separate programmes to be-
come a major component of the research
and innovation landscape in Europe.

‘The European Framework Programme is now
a key reference for countries outside the Europe-
an Union,’ said Professor Jean-Pierre Contzen,
a former director-general of the EU’s in-house
research service, the Joint Research Centre, who
was involved in setting up the First Framework
Programme.

Research has a long history in Europe, but
the emergence of what is now the European
Union has created a novel concept of European
research. Over recent decades, it has gradually
acquired the sense of deliberate collaboration
between European countries linking first their
research activities, then their policies in this field.
This wasn’t always the case. In the 1950s,
early EU research funding was limited to a few
industrial sectors: coal, steel and atomic energy.
In the decades that followed, separate research
programmes were launched in energy, environ-
ment and molecular biology.

HORIZON magazine 3

O V E R V I E W

When Étienne Davignon became the European
Commissioner for Industrial Affairs and Energy
in 1981, he decided to rationalise these initia-
tives by putting them together in a single coher-
ent framework. Two years later, the First Frame-
work Programme was drafted by Prof. Contzen
along with a colleague Louis Villecourt.

From its debut in 1984, the Framework
Programme has expanded in scope and scale
– matching the evolution of the EU itself. Its
legal basis was strengthened and its objectives
were refined and extended. In 1986, the Single
European Act included for the first time a spe-
cific chapter on research, which put the empha-
sis on applied research aiming at supporting the
competitiveness of European industry.

In the 1980s there was only a small pro-
gramme to support fundamental research. By
2007, the European Research Council (ERC) had
been launched. The ERC, which represents 17 %
of the EUR 80 billion budget of the current
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, supports
fundamental research carried out by individual
teams.

As the EU enlarged, candidate countries had
the chance to participate in research collabora-
tions through the Framework Programmes,
sometimes years before they became members.
A wider international dimension was progres-
sively built into EU research policy. Transnational
cooperation was progressively extended to more
and more countries beyond the EU, across the

‘There has been a positive evolution in the sense
that there is perhaps more cooperation between
what is done at the European level and what is
done at the national level.’

– Professor Jean-Pierre Contzen,

former director-general of the Joint Research Centre

entire world. That process culminated in the
opening of all EU research programmes to the
participation of teams from non-EU countries.
In recent years, the Framework Programmes
have also featured new forms of support in the
field of result-oriented research. They have pi-
oneered the creation of large joint undertakings
that bring public and private actors together in
subject-specific partnerships – ranging from
aeronautics to nanoelectronics and pharma-
ceutical research. Schemes for collaboration
between public national research organisations
and programmes have also been set up.

4 HORIZON magazine

COORDINATION

As they have evolved, the Framework Pro-
grammes have enabled better coordination of
research between the European Commission and
national governments. Member States have grad-
ually increased the level of research coordination
and the growing scale and scope of the Frame-
work Programmes has been instrumental in this.
A key step in this respect was, in early 2000,
the launch of the European Research Area (ERA)
initiative by Commissioner Philippe Busquin, on
the basis of ideas from two of his predecessors,
Ralf Dahrendorf in the 1970s and Antonio Ruberti
in the 1990s. The ERA was at the heart of the
Lisbon Agenda and was included in the 2007
Treaty on the European Union (Treaty of Lisbon).
‘Most of the Member States still continue to
decide by themselves their priorities, but there
has been a positive evolution in the sense that
there is perhaps more cooperation between
what is done at the European level and what is
done at the national level,’ said Prof. Contzen.
‘Also, I think that Member States have accepted
that, in some areas, the lead should be at the
level of the EU.’

The impact of the Framework Programmes
is clearly visible in 30 years of cross-border
collaborations between Europe’s scientists, in
the rise in research activity across Europe –
particularly in the newer Member States – and
in the emergence of an increased reflex for
cooperation among researchers and heads of
research organisations in Europe.

National research strategies have increas-
ingly borne Europe in mind, and the growing
synergy between research policy and innovation
policy has led to greater convergence of objec-
tives, as demonstrated by the current Horizon
2020 Programme with its emphasis on delivery
of solutions for the major societal challenges
that Europe faces.

After 30 years of development, the EU’s
Framework Programmes have become a key
element of research policy in Europe. ■

O V E R V I E W

Dr Walter Mönig

The Framework Programmes
have shaped the way research is done

B Y P E T E R O ’ D O N N E L L

Academics and companies have learnt to
cooperate across the EU, making Europe more
innovative and more efficient, according to
Dr Walter Mönig, Chairman of the Board of
Governors, the EU’s Joint Research Centre.

How have the Framework Programmes
influenced the development of EU research?
‘Although EU finance represents only around
5 % of the overall public money for research
in Europe, the Framework Programmes have
changed the direction and structure of Euro-
pean research. The requirements for projects
to engage participants from several countries,
together with support for mobility of research-
ers, have made an international approach to
research the norm in Europe. Reliance on
merely voluntary guidelines could not have
achieved the same degree of coordination.’

What are the specific achievements of
the Framework Programmes? What has
changed?
‘Overall the structural and integrating impact
of the Framework Programmes has made some
developments possible that would otherwise
not have occurred. They have set standards for
effective competitive funding, and are now
role models for national programmes – helping
create a real European Research Area. Com-
panies and academics have learnt to cooperate
with unknown partners in other countries,
changing the research mindset and making
research more efficient.

‘The concentration of research activities within
a single Framework Programme has created a
critical mass of stakeholders who are able to
negotiate an ever-growing share of the EU
budget, and the establishment of the European
Research Council (ERC) and the allocation of
grants for individual researchers and teams on
subjects of their choice have strengthened
Europe’s attractiveness for top scientists across
the world.’

Which forces have driven the evolution
of the Framework Programmes?
‘The Commission has leveraged scarce EU
funds so that national funding reflects the
chosen EU priority areas. The growth in the
programmes also responds to broader recogni-
tion of the needs of a knowledge society and of
the importance of international collaboration.
‘However, the early focus on strengthening
the competitiveness of European industry has
given way to an approach which makes more
room for social challenges and basic research.’

During the development of the Framework
Programmes, are there things you would
have preferred to see happen differently,
or opportunities missed?
‘Instead of defining specific programmes with
hundreds of details for a period of seven years,
a Framework Programme, in my opinion,
should do no more than outline the objectives
and set the upper limit of funding. Details
should be regulated by delegated acts and work

‘The structural and
integrating impact of the
Framework Programmes
has made possible some
developments that would
otherwise not have
occurred.’

– Dr Walter Mönig,

Chairman of the Board of Governors,
the EU’s Joint Research Centre

programmes, reducing the involvement of the
Council and the European Parliament. And
sustainable structures with a clear long-term
remit – like the ERC – should be established
for an indefinite period.’

Are there lessons for the future in the
history of the Framework Programmes?
‘The development of European research poli-
cy through the growth and diversification of
the Framework Programmes is a unique suc-
cess story. The programmes have boosted the
competitiveness of European industry, widen-
ing their priorities to include societal challeng-
es and frontier research in a process of organic
growth. And further improvements are con-
stantly made from the experience gained.’ ■

HORIZON magazine 5

O V E R V I E W

MILESTONES

First
Framework
Programme
(1984-1987)

EUR 3.3 billion

1984

Second
Framework
Programme
(1987-1991)

EUR 5.4 billion

1987

1986

Single European
Act signed.
It includes, for the
first time in an EU
Treaty, a chapter
on research.

1951

1957

1981

Étienne Davignon
becomes European
Commissioner for
Industrial Affairs
and Energy and
decides to
rationalise
research funding
under a single
framework.

Treaty establishing
the European
Coal and Steel
Community (ECSC)
signed.
It provides for
the funding of
research for the
coal and steel
industries.

Treaty establishing
the European
Atomic Energy
Community
(EURATOM) signed.
It provides for
research into
nuclear energy
between countries.

The Joint Research
Centre (JRC) is
launched.
It provides
independent
scientific and
technical advice
to the European
Commission.

6 HORIZON magazine

Third
Framework
Programme
(1990–1994)

Fourth
Framework
Programme
(1994-1998)

Fifth
Framework
Programme
(1998-2002)

Sixth
Framework
Programme
(2002-2006)

Seventh
Framework
Programme
(2007-2013)

Horizon 2020
(2014-2020)

EUR 6.6 billion

EUR 13.2 billion

EUR 14.9 billion

EUR 19.3 billion

EUR 55.9 billion

EUR 80 billion

1990

1994

1998

2002

2007

2014

2000

The Lisbon
European Council
launches the
European Research
Area (ERA).

2007

Treaty on the
European Union
(Treaty of Lisbon)
signed.

The European
Research Council
(ERC) is launched.
It funds frontier
research.

HORIZON magazine 7

O V E R V I E W

Máire Geoghegan-Quinn

The scale of Horizon 2020 is a vote of
CONFIDENCE
for research

Member States’ agreement to boost

research funding by 30 % shows just
how crucial research and innovation
are to Europe, according to Máire
Geoghegan-Quinn, European Commissioner for
Research, Innovation and Science 2010-2014.

Together with President Barroso, you were
the driving force behind Europe’s biggest-
ever research programme. How hard
was it to convince Member States?
‘The 30 % budget increase for Horizon 2020
is a real vote of confidence in the power of
research and innovation. Going into the
budget negotiations the signs weren’t good.

8 HORIZON magazine

B Y B E N D E I G H T O N

There were different groups of Member States
fighting for agriculture, for Structural Funds,
and those wanting to cut the overall EU
budget. Research was at risk of becoming
a casualty of this battle, but in the end it was
one of very few budget areas to see a significant
increase.

‘We had to work very hard to achieve this,
and the research and business communities
also spoke out loud and clear on the risks to
the European economy if research and inno-
vation was cut. The European Parliament also
backed the Commission proposals and in the
end we saw that Member States realised how
important this area is for jobs and growth.’

What was the pivotal moment?
‘There were a few moments, but I will never
forget a marathon Competitiveness Council
meeting in Luxembourg in October 2012,
under the Cyprus Presidency. After we had
long discussions around the table and in the
corridors, Member States agreed on the rules
of participation in Horizon 2020, including
the radical simplification measures proposed
by the Commission.

The other key moment for me was the
political agreement between the Council and
the European Parliament in June 2013 under
the Irish Presidency, effectively sealing the
deal on Horizon 2020.’

‘I think we’ll be able
to look back in years
to come and see
a programme
that delivered what
it promised.’

– Máire Geoghegan-Quinn,

European Commissioner
for Research, Innovation and Science
2010-2014

Did you achieve everything you set out
to do when you started as research
commissioner in 2010?
‘We certainly achieved what we set out to do
with Horizon 2020, including a larger budget,
radical simplification, more attention to inno-
vation and societal challenges, a focus on
SMEs and gender equality. I think we’ll be
able to look back in years to come and see
a programme that delivered what it promised.
‘We have also taken a decisive step for-
ward on the European Research Area (ERA).
While this is a continuous process we have
now created the conditions at European level
to make the ERA a reality. What we need now
is implementation at Member State level.’

You championed the under-representation
of women during your time as research
commissioner. What still needs to be done
in this area?
‘The situation is improving, albeit much too
slowly. Fewer than a third of researchers in the
EU are female, despite the fact that women
graduates outnumber their male colleagues.
The higher up you go, the worse it gets: only
10 % of the rectors of universities are women.
That is why we need a push to promote gender
equality in research and we’re leading by ex-
ample in Horizon 2020 and in our work on
the ERA.’

What advice would you give to your
successor Carlos Moedas?
‘I’ve met Carlos Moedas on a number of
occasions now, and was very impressed by his
performance at his European Parliament
hearing. He has outlined the key issues
perfectly: improve the framework conditions
for research and innovation in Europe; deliver
on Horizon 2020’s promise; and defend the
principle of excellence in research. So I don’t
think he needs very much advice from me – he
has an excellent team supporting him in the
European Commission.’ ■

‘ I want to reform and
reorganise Europe’s
energy policy in a new
European Energy Union.’

– Jean-Claude Juncker,

President of the European Commission

The hydrogen inside the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
(ITER) will be heated to 150 million
degrees Celsius, but its cooling system
will freeze parts of the plant to just
four degrees above absolute zero.

HORIZON magazine 9

ENERGYISASIMPORTANTFOREUROPENOWASITWASINTHE1950sBYPETERO’DONNELL&BENDEIGHTONInthe1950s,energyresearchwasaforceforpeaceinEurope,butclimatechangeandtheneedforenergysecuritymeanitisatleastasimportantnowasitwasthen.‘EnergyresearchneedstobeoneofthemainfactorsofEuropeanintegration,’saidPro-fessorPierrePapon,theformerdirector-generaloftheFrenchNationalCenterforScientificResearch(CNRS).‘Thisisakeypointandhistoryhasshownit.’WiththeEuropeanCoalandSteelCommunity,setupin1951tosecurepeaceaftertheravagesofWorldWarII,andtheEURATOMorganisationcreatedin1957,energywasamongthefirstareasoftrans-nationalresearchcooperationinEurope.Nuclearenergyremainsamajorfieldofcollaborativeresearch,withtheEUplayingaleadingroleinnuclearfusionresearch,andmakingamajorcontributiontoITER,theex-perimentalfusionreactorcurrentlybeingbuiltinCadarache,France.EUresearchonnuclearfissionconcentratesonsecurityandsafety.However,thesearchforclean,sustainableenergywasstillinitsinfancywhentheFrame-workProgrammesstartedinthe1980s.Itwouldn’tbeuntilthe1990s,whenthenewlyestablishedUNIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChangebegantoissueassessmentreports,thatclimatechangemadeitswayintopublicconsciousness,andgovernmentpolicy.UndertheJouleprogrammethatstartedundertheSecondFrameworkProgrammein1987,researchintoenergyefficiencyandrenewableenergiesbecameincreasinglyprominent,andbytheFifthFrameworkPro-grammeEUR1billionhadbeeninvestedinenergyresearch.TheneedtoacceleratethedevelopmentofsustainableenergyandworkoutwaystoefficientlymanagetheenergygridpromptedtheEUin2007tolaunchitsStrategicEnergyTechnologyPlan(SETPlan),whichaimsatacceleratingthedevelopmentanddeploy-mentofcost-effectivelow-carbontechnolo-gies.ItiswithinthisoverallenergypolicyframeworkthatEUresearchonnewenergytechnologieshastakenplacesincethestartoftheSeventhFrameworkProgramme.Europestillhasworktodobeforeitreachesits2020goalof20%ofitsenergycomingfromrenewablesources,withinvest-mentneededifanenergytransitionistobeachieved.That’swhysecure,cleanandeffi-cientenergyhasbeennamedasoneofthesevensocietalchallengesofHorizon2020,withalmostEUR6billionoffundingallocat-edtoit.Givenwhat’satstake,energyneedstobeapolicypriorityonceagainforEurope.ItsimportancehasbeenrecognisedbythenewCommissionwithPresidentJean-ClaudeJunckerstating:‘Iwanttoreformandreor-ganiseEurope’senergypolicyinanewEuro-peanEnergyUnion.’■I N D U S T R Y & E C O N O M Y

From single technologies
to large-scale
PUBLIC-PRIVATE
partnerships:
how industrial research is converging
to keep Europe ahead of the game

B Y R E X M E R R I F I E L D

Europe’s large-scale collaborations with
industry are the culmination of 30 years
of continuous research funding.

Europe’s support for industry has evolved

from single technology programmes to
large-scale partnerships involving whole
sectors and hundreds of researchers, and
it’s helping Europe’s industry keep a leading
position in sectors such as energy and transport.
Over a quarter of Europe’s biggest ever
funding programme – Horizon 2020 – has been
allocated to help fund research partnerships
between the EU and industry.

These public-private partnerships (PPPs)
bring together EU research funding and entire
industries in Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs)
and contract-based PPPs in sectors such as phar-
maceuticals, aeronautics, electronics, hydrogen
fuel cells, new factories, construction, chemicals
and other process industries, and have ambitious
goals such as developing new drugs, making in-
dustries cleaner and cutting emissions.

‘The timescales of developing some technolo-
gies can be very long for a business and difficult
to sustain, so support from the Framework
Programmes can be a good way to get research
going and to keep it going,’ said Dr Léopold
Demiddeleer, a former executive at Belgian
chemicals group Solvay who has led the indus-
trial research and development of hydrogen fuel
cells and organic electronics.

However, these large-scale initiatives are
the culmination of 30 years of continuous
European research funding for industry.

Industrial research was already at the heart
of the Framework Programmes in its first incar-
nation in the early 1980s. The focus then was
on so-called pre-competitive research in single
technology areas.

Étienne Davignon, European Commissioner
for Industrial Affairs and Energy 1981-1985,
who introduced the First Framework Programme
in 1984, first put forward the argument that
European research funding should help make
industry more competitive.

10 HORIZON magazine

A NEW INDUSTRIAL FUTURE

During the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6),
industry, public authorities and technology users
came together as part of the new European
Technology Platforms, which were designed to
operate across sectors in areas such as manu-
facturing, construction, nanotechnologies and
industrial safety. These forums for discussion
and exchange provided a basis for the launch of
the JTIs and contractual PPPs in the Seventh
Framework Programme (FP7).

The impact of research funding through
a consortium of research institutes, universities,
small- and medium-sized businesses and large
industrial groups is illustrated in the success of the
ORION nanomaterials project, funded under FP7.
The four-year partnership has generated new
technologies that can greatly improve recharge-
able batteries, solar panels and light-emitting
devices. It has sparked about a dozen patent
applications and more than 70 scientific papers.
Members of the consortium have also already
launched some new products on the market.

The inclusion of emerging but disruptive
technologies, such as nanotechnologies, in FP6
completed the full range of research activities
that helped Europe to compete and to fashion
a new industrial future.

This drive to use research funding to help
promote innovation in Europe’s industry through
large partnerships is being developed further
under Horizon 2020 via its industrial leadership
pillar, which emphasises the importance of in-
novation in the quest for competitiveness, eco-
nomic growth and jobs, and is encouraging
thousands of projects that bring benefits to the
wider economy. ■

‘The timescales of
developing some
technologies can be very
long for a business and
difficult to sustain.’

– Dr Léopold Demiddeleer,

a former executive at
Belgian chemicals group Solvay

HORIZON magazine 11

A nanorobot manufacturing unit would be able to build other nanorobots using raw materials found within specially
designed bacteria. Such devices could be used for building space colonies or terraforming planets.

This was embodied in the European Strategic
Program on Research in Information Technology
(ESPRIT) which in the 1980s linked researchers
with the big industry players in the IT sector, who
proposed what work was needed to compete
with the US and Japan.

The 1980s saw the birth of parallel indus-
trial programmes based on the model of ESPRIT:
BRITE, which encouraged basic research in in-
dustrial technologies across all sectors, and
EURAM, backing the research and development
of advanced materials.

In the early 1990s support grew for larger
‘integrated projects’ in the Framework Pro-
grammes, which could help Europe’s industries
innovate and hold their ground against compe-
tition from Asia.

It took two years of negotiations for Member
States to finally agree that EU research funding

should support targeted research in the Fourth
Framework Programme, which would help in-
dustry to become more competitive.

The focus broadened in the Fifth Framework
Programme (FP5) to include measures that
would make Europe a better place to innovate,
such as a more efficient research infrastructure,
and create a cleaner and safer environment.

Arturo GarcÍa Arroyo, Director for Industrial
Technologies at the European Commission’s
Directorate-General for Research and Innova-
tion during the first five Framework Programmes,
stated at the time that ‘the key action concept
of FP5 embodied all activities, combining the
scientific knowledge and technological appli-
cations that will help develop and empower our
industries to compete with their competitors
and help European society develop a sustain-
able future’.

Étienne Davignon

12 HORIZON magazine

I N D U S T R Y & E C O N O M Y

The
SUCCESS

of the Framework Programmes has helped show
the vanity of national borders

B Y B E N D E I G H T O N

‘Luckily the pessimists were proved wrong,
and what I would like to see is that the pessimists
are proved wrong once again.’

– Étienne Davignon,

Vice-President of the European Commission 1977-1985

The Framework Programmes have given

Europe a leading role in science, showing
that more things can be achieved by
countries working together than alone,
according to Étienne Davignon, European Com-
missioner for Industrial Affairs and Energy
1981-1985 and a former vice-president of the
Commission, who introduced the First Frame-
work Programme in 1984.

When you look back over the last three
decades, what were the crucial turning
points in the development of
the Framework Programmes?
‘The crucial points came in the early years. The
first is the acceptance by the scientific commu-
nity of the utility of a European programme,
and I think this is important because if you

don’t have the support of those who are active,
then you don’t have the legitimacy of your
ambition. The second is overcoming the reluc-
tance of Member States to understand why
European programmes are useful for them.’

Was there a pivotal moment when Member
States conceded that European research
had an important role to play?
‘The pivotal moment was when ESPRIT
(European Strategic Program on Research in
Information Technology) was born, because
this was an additional budget for an additional
project. It was at the end of the time when
I was a commissioner. We had a council of
research ministers in October and, interestingly,
the scientific advisor to Mrs Thatcher (the British
Prime Minister at the time) had convinced

her that this was a good programme, and the
French then came and said, “we are all in
favour, but instead of (us agreeing that the
EU should give) the EUR 1 billion or the
EUR 900 million which were requested, we
will only (agree to) give EUR 600 million”.

‘I surprised the council at that time by
saying “I have listened to what has just been
said, I withdraw the programme”. There was
protest to the President of the Commission
saying that I had taken a decision which had
not been discussed by the Commission itself,
that I didn’t have the authority to do this.
The President said that I had the authority,
and in December (after another discussion) we
approved the programme at the initial level.
So it means that from time to time you can
fight for what you believe in.’

HORIZON magazine 13

I N D U S T R Y & E C O N O M Y

What did industry-focused programmes
such as ESPRIT, and BRITE-EURAM
achieve?
‘You have created a system by which industry,
universities, and research centres are involved
in a number of cooperative projects. The num-
ber of states and universities participating has
created the network effect which is obvious in
science today.’

When you look at Europe today, what part
of it has been shaped by the Framework
Programmes?
‘They (the Framework Programmes) are still
a small percentage of the totality of research
funding which is being spent, so you can’t say
that they have been a fundamental shaping
factor. But, on the other side, they have clearly
demonstrated the vanity of national borders

and, in that sense, they have not shaped but
simply confirmed that you can do things bet-
ter together than alone, and I think it was an
important statement to re-make. It is also an
element which gives credibility to the fact that
scientifically Europe is strong. With globali-
sation there is a lot of feeling that Europe is on
the losing side. The Framework Programmes
have shown that a lot of important things can
be done.’

What is the biggest lesson that you could
draw from looking back over the last
30 years?
‘That a lot of things we did were considered at
the start as hopeless. Luckily the pessimists
were proved wrong, and what I would like to
see is that the pessimists are proved wrong
once again.’ ■

MEASURING
INNOVATION IN THE EU

The innovation output indicator is a measurement used to estimate the
production of ideas and changes that can make our lives better and how
likely these are to reach the market and to create jobs. It takes into account
the number of patent applications filed, the percentage of people employed
in knowledge-intense industries and trade in medium and high-tech products.

150

120

90

60

30

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

14 HORIZON magazine

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

U
E

e
c
n
a
r
F

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R

h
c
e
z
C

2012

2011

2010

a
i
k
a
v
o
S

l

a
t
l
a
M

y
l
a
t
I

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
o
P

l

i

n
a
p
S

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

e
c
e
e
r
G

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

i

a
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

Source: Eurostat, OECD, Innovation Union Scoreboard 2014, DG JRC

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

I N D U S T R Y & E C O N O M Y

FUEL, MEDICINES AND BEER:
THE MULTIPLE BENEFITS OF THE FIRST-EVER
COMPLEX CELL TO HAVE ITS GENOME SEQUENCED

B Y R E X M E R R I F I E L D

LOW ALCOHOL

Having a blueprint of the inner workings of yeast
has been all-important in identifying and devel-
oping new strains for making beers and wines
with particular flavours or lower alcohol, or to
be used in hotter production regions.

New yeast varieties have also helped in ef-
forts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, through
biofuels such as industrial ethanol and biodiesel
from plant matter or waste from wood processing.
In medicine, the yeast genome map has
allowed yeast to be used to produce new med-
ications and vaccines, and in understanding
diseases such as colon cancer and cystic fibro-
sis. It has also played an important role in de-
veloping treatments such as gene therapy.

‘I think the synergy among yeast research-
ers within Europe was hugely boosted by the
chromosome III project and the genome project,’
Prof. Oliver said. ‘The collaborations outlived the
sequencing project itself and have continued
through other projects.’ ■

‘Sequencing
chromosome III …
provided the keys
to unlock the genetic
potential of yeast.’

– Professor Stephen Oliver,

Cambridge University, UK

HORIZON magazine 15

Sequencing the genome of yeast has enabled researchers to develop new strains that can be used in biofuels
or to make vaccines.

Yeast was the very first non-bacterial
organism to have all of its genes
sequenced, and the collaborative
nature of the EU-funded breakthrough
laid the foundations for the sequencing
of the human genome less than
10 years later.

Unlocking the DNA of Saccharomyces cerevisiae,
a species of yeast used in winemaking, baking
and brewing, began through the EU’s Biotechnol-
ogy Action Plan (BAP) in 1989. Led by Belgian
biologist André Goffeau, a total of 147 researchers
from 35 laboratories linked forces to sequence
chromosome III, one of the 16 chromosomes
found in yeast, with the groundbreaking results
published in 1992.

‘Without the European funds, I don’t think
the project would have happened at all. It cer-
tainly wouldn’t have moved as fast as it did,’

said Professor Stephen Oliver, now of Cambridge
University, UK, who led the team.

‘Sequencing chromosome III … provided the
keys to unlock the genetic potential of yeast and
other organisms, because we could define what
was there and begin to study the function of
genes that, previously, we didn’t even know
existed,’ he said.

Mapping the remaining 15 yeast chromo-
somes was completed with further Framework
Programme support for an even wider consorti-
um of researchers in the EU, the US, Japan and
Canada, and published in 1996.

Funding from BAP’s successors – the
BRIDGE and BIOTECH programmes – helped to
identify the functions of specific yeast genes.
That was crucial in understanding similar genes
in humans, and laid the foundations for se-
quencing the entire human genome, which was
completed in 2003.

‘Very firm scientific relationships have been
established that have lasted a very long time and
continue to be productive in terms of publications
and advancing scientific knowledge.’

– Professor Bob Will,

Professor of Clinical Neurology, University of Edinburgh, UK

16HORIZONmagazineS O C I E T Y

THE MAD COW DISEASE CRISIS

how Europe’s
HEALTH RESEARCH
came of age

B Y G A R Y F I N N E G A N

When a mystery brain disease jumped from cows to
humans in 1996, a concerted effort by EU researchers
helped to unravel its causes, and change food
production for good.

T he outbreak was uncharted territory

– a unique challenge requiring an un-
precedented rapid response. There was
no cure to Mad Cow Disease, or bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), no vaccine,
and nobody could say with confidence whether
there was a risk of a major human outbreak.

Even though the Framework Programmes were
seen primarily as a way to strengthen the com-
petitiveness of European industry when they
were launched in 1984, health research, along
with environment, had been integral from the
beginning and became increasingly important as
they progressed. In addition, since its inception,

EU research policy has addressed issues which
are key to society, such as energy and transport.
However, the BSE crisis required something
more – a vast effort of real-time coordinated
research across Member States.

The alarm was first raised by a collaboration
of experts from several countries – supported by

HORIZON magazine 17

S O C I E T Y

The BSE crisis led to a fundamental change in the rules
governing meat traceability and food labelling.

The human form of BSE, known as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, causes brain tissue to become spongy,
destroying nerve cells and leading to dementia.

that meat products must be labelled in such
a way that an animal can be traced all the way
back to the farm it came from.

Research aimed at monitoring society be-
came increasingly important in successive
Framework Programmes. To a large extent, as
it showed how research could be put directly to
the service of society, the EU’s response to the
BSE crisis anticipated and pre-empted the fo-
cus on societal challenges that now forms the
backbone of Horizon 2020. ■

the European Commission – who had been
conducting enhanced surveillance for the hu-
man form of BSE, known as Creutzfeldt-Jakob
disease (CJD), since 1993.

In early 1996 they announced a new vari-
ant of CJD, and by November that year the
European Commission had put forward EUR
50 million to fund research on the disease
under the Fourth Framework Programme. In
total, around EUR 100 million of European re-
search funds were invested to find answers to
this potentially devastating disease between
1996 and 2008.

SCIENTISTS MOBILISED

As the crisis unfolded, scientists across Europe
mobilised to deepen their understanding of the
disease so they could improve diagnosis and
contain the outbreak. National governments
shared information and adapted their research
priorities to address the problem.

Two BSE diagnostic tests, which were pro-
posed to help decide which animals to cull for
BSE control, were developed respectively by an
Irish and a Swiss company thanks to EU funding.
The Joint Research Centre (JRC), the EU’s
in-house science service, was instrumental in

18 HORIZON magazine

validating these two diagnostic tests and ref-
erence materials for the disease, helping to
ensure that the same high standards of testing
were used across Europe.

During the crisis and its aftermath over
200 people died from CJD, while 4.4 million
cattle were slaughtered in the UK as part of
the eradication programme.

LASTING LEGACY

As a result of the crisis, a European research
group on BSE was formed, disease surveillance
networks were strengthened, and links were
set up between experts from human and vet-
erinary medicine.

‘Very firm scientific relationships have
been established that have lasted a very long
time and continue to be productive in terms of
publications and advancing scientific knowl-
edge,’ said Professor Bob Will, from the Univer-
sity of Edinburgh, UK, a leading CJD expert.

This research initiative was a crucial part
of a broader coordination effort involving
European and national authorities in food
safety, which resulted in deep changes in the
legislation and the practices in this field. It has
helped form current regulations which stipulate

S O C I E T Y

Professor Luc Soete

Social sciences
can unlock the full value
of new technologies

B Y G A R Y F I N N E G A N

ATLAS OF
‘AVOIDABLE DEATH’

The inclusion of societal problems into
research funding programmes came
through evolution rather than revolution,
but there were a number of landmark
projects that helped to prove the value of
pan-European health research. One exam-
ple was an ambitious project that looked
at how and why people die – and whether
these deaths could have been avoided
thanks to quicker and more efficient care.
By its sheer scale, the project which cul-
minated in the publication of the Europe-
an Community Atlas of ‘Avoidable Death’
in 1988 (which has been updated twice,
most recently in 1997) was a perfect fit
for a European venture. It allowed scien-
tists to look at a much larger, more di-
verse population and examine genetic
factors, lifestyle, and the differences in
health systems and their efficiency. Ulti-
mately, it helped improve the perfor-
mance of health systems in Europe.

Because of the impact it had, the
atlas was ‘a seminal study’, according to
Professor Martin McKee, a specialist in
European public health at the London
School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
The success of projects such as this
proved to researchers and politicians that
Europe had a unique role to play in health
research. It was also an example of sci-
ence that would go on to have an impact
on society.

Once seen as the Cinderella of EU research
programmes in an era dominated by high-tech
industries, social sciences and humanities are
now essential to extracting value from re-
search, says Professor Luc Soete, Rector
Magnificus of Maastricht University, the
Netherlands.

Why were social sciences initially seen
as being of lower priority than ‘hard’
sciences?
‘If you look at the historical context and the
role of the European Commission, EU re-
search programmes emerged as an extension
of industrial policy. Research policy was all
about competitiveness; it wasn’t connected to
university research or education. Almost by
definition, social sciences and humanities were
not high on the list of priorities at that time.’

What do you see as a major landmark
in the evolution of EU support for social
sciences and humanities research?
‘The Targeted Socio-Economic Research
(TSER) programme, under the Fourth Frame-
work Programme, was a big one. With the rise
of new technologies and high-tech industries,
and the development of new services, there was
a need to analyse the economic and social
impacts of the changes that were taking place.’

What research questions could social
sciences help to answer?
‘Looking at the 1990s, there was for instance
a big question about whether science and tech-
nology would create jobs or would in fact lead
to unemployment. Digital technologies were
emerging rapidly and ICT was having an im-
pact beyond industry; it was having an impact
on society.

‘With the rise of new
technologies and high-
tech industries …
there was a need to
analyse the economic
and social impacts of
the changes that were
taking place.’

– Professor Luc Soete,

Rector Magnificus
of Maastricht University,
the Netherlands

HORIZON magazine 19

S O C I E T Y

PHD GRADUATES
IN SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES
IN THE EU

HUMANITIES
AND ARTS

European Union (27 countries)

15 000

10 000

5 000

20 000

15 000

10 000

5 000

SOCIAL SCIENCES,
BUSINESS AND LAW

European Union (27 countries)

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Source of data: Eurostat

‘When the Services Directive (to remove legal
and administrative barriers in the services
sector) was being crafted, there was also a lot
of discussion about diversity in Europe – eco-
nomic, social, linguistic, cultural – and how
this impacts on industry in the EU. Pulling
social sciences into the Framework Pro-
grammes then became very logical.

‘There is an incredible opportunity to
look at how new digital technologies will
change the way we deliver particular services.
We would be in a much stronger position if
more research had been done on the impact
of digital technologies in a fragmented tele-
coms market.’

What kind of relationship needs to
develop between social sciences and
technology development, particularly
in terms of EU projects?
‘We are now living in a very different world
from an industrial point of view (compared
to when TSER was launched). Social and
hard sciences are more integrated now; be-
havioural sciences are essential for research
policy. When we talk about technology plat-
forms – whether it’s ICT or life sciences;
nanotech or food – extracting the value from
these technologies requires much more un-
derstanding of social and behavioural scienc-
es. Social sciences are now viewed as present-
ing opportunities for the creation of value.’

How important was the launch of the
European Research Council (ERC) in 2007
and its commitment to fund social
sciences research?
‘When the ERC was created it was pretty
obvious that it would include all research,
including social sciences and humanities.
It had a tremendous impact on this area,
nurturing quality research by giving prestig-
ious grants to young researchers, and promot-
ing mobility for scientists.

‘Of course, the amount of funding avail-
able could be more and mobility also creates
issues of brain drain which are being ad-
dressed, but overall the ERC has made
a significant difference.’ ■

20 HORIZON magazine

S O C I E T Y

Teresa Riera Madurell

We wanted to show citizens that science
can make Europe a better place
to live and work

B Y G A R Y F I N N E G A N

European policymakers wanted the EU’s lat-
est funding programme, Horizon 2020, to
demonstrate how research and innovation
make Europe more competitive and – in doing
so – more attractive to its inhabitants, ac-
cording to Teresa Riera Madurell, a former
MEP who represented the European Parlia-
ment in the negotiations on Horizon 2020.

As ‘rapporteur’ you were responsible for
preparing the report for the European
Parliament on Horizon 2020. What was
the role of the Parliament in shaping
this programme?
‘According to the Treaty, the Framework Pro-
gramme must be adopted by the co-decision
procedure, meaning the European Parliament
has full legislative powers together with the
Council of the EU. I led negotiations within
the Parliament. Later, when the parliamentary
groups had reached consensus, I had the hon-
our and responsibility of leading the negotia-
tions with the Council.’

What were your priorities during the
negotiations to agree the content and
budget of Horizon 2020?
‘Europe 2020 sets out a vision of the continent
as a knowledge-based economy, with a target of
3 % research and development intensity to be
achieved by the EU by 2020. Horizon 2020
becomes the Union’s main contribution to
reach this ambitious goal.

‘After the long and difficult negotiations,
the final agreement, on the EUR 80 billion
budget at the service of European research and
innovation during the next seven years, was
the best deal possible with the Council. To
compensate, we negotiated proposals aimed at
using the budget in a more efficient way to try
to multiply its effects all over Europe and to
really reach our objectives of strengthening the
EU’s position in science, empowering indus-
trial leadership in innovation, and tackling the
societal challenges Europe is facing.

‘The Parliament also prioritised the reduction
of red tape; open access to scientific publica-
tions; a clear and ambitious budget for research
and innovation in renewable energy sources
and energy efficiency; a substantial budget for
small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs);
gender equality; better control of public-pri-
vate partnerships; a proper role for social
sciences and humanities; genuine dialogue
between science and society; and strengthen-
ing researchers’ competences and skills
through reinforcing and properly funding the
Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme.’

Horizon 2020 will devote 39 % of funds to
societal challenges. Why is this important?
‘Knowledge must be at the heart of innovative
answers to the societal challenges which are
the greatest concerns of EU citizens. There-
fore, Horizon 2020 reflects these major con-
cerns shared by citizens in Europe and else-
where as the main priorities to be funded.’

Will this help to make EU research more
meaningful for European citizens?
‘Horizon 2020, as a whole, is designed to con-
tribute to integrating scientific and technolog-
ical endeavour into European society. Our aim
is to help citizens to be aware that research and
innovation largely contribute to making Europe
a better place to live and work, and that they
improve Europe’s competitiveness, boosting
growth and job creation.’

Why is it important to allocate
EUR 400 million for projects under the
heading ‘science with and for society’?
‘Establishing an effective dialogue between
science and society is an imperative. Horizon
2020 lays down the foundations for a genuine
and fruitful dialogue to emerge. If we want
science to be a priority for public investment,
we need European citizens to share scientific
values and recognise the contribution of sci-
ence to progress.’ ■

‘If we want science to
be a priority for public
investment, we need
European citizens to
share scientific values
and recognise the
contribution of science
to progress.’

- Teresa Riera Madurell,

former MEP

HORIZON magazine 21

E U R O P E A N R E S E A R C H A R E A

The
‘PERFECT STORM’
to create ERA:
how an idea became a policy priority
in just six months

B Y G A R Y F I N N E G A N

Former research
commissioner Philippe
Busquin explains how
on taking office
in September 1999
he began to champion
the idea of a European
Research Area (ERA).
Thanks to an exceptional
set of circumstances,
the ERA became part of
the EU policy agenda
in March 2000, setting
the scene for a new level
of scientific cooperation
across the EU.

22 HORIZON magazine

Where did the idea for the ERA come from
and why didn’t it happen before?
‘It was put forward by Antonio Ruberti
(European Commissioner for Research 1993-
1995) at the time of President Jacques Delors,
but was in fact based on the ideas of one of his
predecessors, Ralf Dahrendorf (European
Commissioner for Research 1973-1974). So it’s
actually an old idea, but one which had never
been put into practice. The Framework
Programmes were seen as providing additional
funding for research alongside the national
programmes.

‘Several people had spoken to me about
the idea of a European Research Area and
straightaway I saw that we needed to trans-
form this idea into a real political project.
The Framework Programmes at this time
represented 5 % of public funding for re-
search in Europe and needed to be used as
leverage.’

The ERA is often seen as a personal
achievement for you. What role did
you play?
‘President Romano Prodi, with whom I had a
good relationship, had been preparing what

would become the Lisbon Strategy, which
aimed to make the EU a knowledge-based
economy that would be the most competitive
in the world by 2010. However, in the eyes of
many, the knowledge-based economy was
mainly concerned with information technol-
ogy. I easily convinced Prodi to integrate sci-
entific research into the heart of the project.
‘As soon as I was appointed, we started
work. In a few months a document was draft-
ed. On 1 January 2000, Portugal took over
the EU Presidency. It so happened that the
Portuguese Prime Minister at the time,
António Guterres, was both a political ally
and a friend. Together with Prodi’s backing
for the project, Guterres’ support was decisive.
‘In January 2000 my document was very
quickly put on the agenda. Prodi’s support
and my network of contacts really helped. In
just six months the document was approved
and became part of the Lisbon Strategy.
It was a real political statement.

‘At the European Council meeting in
March 2000 the problem was that the text
was so new for many of the delegations, and
the bigger countries were asking what it was
about. Despite our best efforts, the outcome

Philippe Busquin

depended totally on the willingness of the
countries involved.’

What was the most difficult part of
the negotiations?
‘Member States are always cautious when
presented with an initiative coming from the
Commission and want to stay in full control.
The ERA was an invitation for them to better
coordinate their activities and to set up a large
market for research, which my successor
Janez Potočnik would later call the “fifth
freedom”, that of knowledge alongside the
freedom of movement for goods, people,
services and capital.

‘Well, the idea of coordination always
created a lot of reluctance, notably among the
larger Member States.

‘At the start of the negotiations we were
not at all sure we would win. However, I suc-
ceeded in getting the UK research minister
Lord Sainsbury’s support and that of his
French counterpart, Claude Allègre, and with
the backing of certain smaller countries –
starting with Portugal and Belgium – we
managed to convince everyone to move in this
new direction.’

‘Despite our best efforts, the outcome depended totally
on the willingness of the countries involved.’

– Philippe Busquin,

European Commissioner for Research 1999-2004

How significant is it that the Treaty
on the European Union (Treaty of Lisbon)
refers to ERA?
‘Up to this point, the objective of research
policy, as set out in the Treaties, was to support
industrial competitiveness. The Treaty of
Lisbon legitimised the objective of coordinat-
ing national research efforts and the creation
of a single market for research. At the same
time, it explicitly allowed fundamental re-
search to become an EU competence. This
allowed us to create the European Research
Council and give a European dimension to
fundamental research.’

Which areas have benefited the most
from the creation of the ERA?
‘The benefits are very clear in the case of large
research infrastructures. There’s no point

creating the same two infrastructures 200 kilo-
metres away from each other in different
countries, and large-scale projects of this kind
are very costly. The establishment of the Euro-
pean Strategy Forum on Research Infrastruc-
tures (ESFRI) has allowed a real European
policy to develop in different domains, such
as synchrotron radiation sources, high-power
lasers, and databases in biology.’

What can be done to make it easier
for researchers to move around
the European Union?
‘The problem of the social security status of
researchers needs to be resolved by creating
a specific status – that of a European researcher.
A European Charter for Researchers exists,
but it isn’t binding and we need to try to go
further.’ ■

HORIZON magazine 23

E U R O P E A N R E S E A R C H A R E A

‘In order that
we can combine efforts
you really need
to have simple rules.’

– Pr Maria da Graça Carvalho,

former MEP

The European Research Area (ERA) is taking
shape in the community of researchers who
collaborate across Europe, and it’s thanks to
the Framework Programmes, according to
Professor Maria da Graça Carvalho, a former
MEP who was instrumental in simplifying the
rules of Horizon 2020.

What has the role of the Framework
Programmes been in helping to build
the ERA?
‘I see the ERA as a bottom-up process and an
evolving process. The Framework Programmes
are probably the most powerful tool for build-
ing the ERA. We are not starting from scratch
though. Every researcher knows the other re-
searchers in their field and they are used to
working with each other and exchanging
ideas. There is a strong link and this process
was initiated by the Framework Programmes.’

What are your experiences of the
Framework Programmes and what
changes have you seen in that time?
‘I participated in the First Framework Pro-
gramme. I was working at the time as a post-
doc at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg,
in Germany, after my PhD at Imperial Col-
lege, UK. Up until I became a minister in
2003, when I stopped my direct research ac-
tivities, I always worked on projects financed
by the Framework Programmes.

‘Moreover, I have vast experience as an
evaluator. I was chair of the Marie Curie pan-
el for engineering and physics for six years.
And I was a national delegate in many pro-
grammes, so I have a lot of experience, as
a researcher and as a minister.

‘With the passing of time you could see
each Framework Programme becoming more
and more administratively and financially
complicated.’

24 HORIZON magazine

Professor Maria da Graça Carvalho

The Framework Programmes
are the most important tool to implement
the European Research Area

B Y B E N D E I G H T O N

Why have you focused so squarely on
simplification during the preparation of
Horizon 2020?
‘Bureaucracy and complex rules can be a signif-
icant barrier to innovation and to new ideas.

‘The Member States have different bureau-
cracies from the Commission and in order to
build the ERA it is important to align the dif-
ferent national research systems. But joining
together different bureaucracies can lead to a
chaotic system. The EU really needs to simpli-
fy and the Member States need to follow this
example as most of the Member States have
more complex systems than the Commission.’

Have the rules and regulations been
simplified enough in Horizon 2020?
‘I think that, in terms of simplification, Hori-
zon 2020 is quite balanced and represents
a step forward. Now it is important to keep this
up during its implementation. I know public
administration well, I am a public servant
myself, and the tendency of public adminis-
trations is to verify, verify, verify. That’s a good

tendency, but there is the risk that with time
things start to become complex again. To
avoid this, an assessment of the simplification
procedure should be carried out during the
mid-term review of Horizon 2020.’

What else needs to be done for the ERA?
‘It’s very important to make mobility easier,
both in terms of the portability of grants and
the portability of pension schemes.

‘We also need to have more alignment
among the Member States. This does not
mean that Member States should have the
same research agendas, but they should discuss
their agendas together and look for ways to
build bridges.

‘There are many areas where the Mem-
ber States and the Commission should work
together. A good example is rare diseases.
Member States should join forces with the
Commission on this. Research will advance
much more quickly if efforts are combined.
This constitutes a concrete example of how the
ERA can be strengthened.’ ■

E U R O P E A N R E S E A R C H A R E A

WHAT IS ERA?

B Y G A R Y F I N N E G A N

ERA IN THE EU TREATY

Article 179 of the Treaty on the European Union
(Treaty of Lisbon) states that the ERA can help
the EU to strengthen its scientific and techno-
logical bases. It describes the ERA as a ‘single
market’ for research and researchers, which
should make it possible to share data, compare
results, carry out multi-disciplinary studies,
transfer and protect new scientific knowledge
and gain access to centres of excellence and
state-of-the-art equipment. ■

out on social insurance or pension entitlements.
The Commission is supporting the setting up of
a single European pension arrangement (RE-
SAVER) to help researchers keep their supple-
mentary pension benefits when moving be-
tween different countries. ■

COORDINATION
OF NATIONAL RESEARCH

Coordinating more closely national research
priorities in different countries can bring ben-

efits because, by pooling resources, funding
can be used to tackle major problems which
might otherwise be too large for one Member
State to address on its own. It also reduces
unnecessary duplication, helping to ensure that
scarce resources are spent efficiently. Exam-
ples include the ERA-NET scheme, which pro-
vided targeted support for the coordination of
national and regional research programmes,
and Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs), which
allow countries to come together to tackle
major challenges, such as climate change and
healthy ageing. ■

OPEN ACCESS

The free movement of knowledge is a central
principle of the ERA. The results of research
funded under Horizon 2020 will be freely avail-
able to all. This means that scientists, busi-
nesses and even the public will be able to read
the latest science and apply its findings.
EU research funding programmes have an
important role to play in making this new way
of sharing science the norm. Progress is also
being made on encouraging the publication of
research data – the information on which re-
search findings are based. ■

MOBILITY OF RESEARCHERS

The free movement of scientists is a prerequi-
site for creating a single market for research.
EURAXESS (www.euraxess.org) is a pan-Euro-
pean initiative which provides information and
support services to researchers to help them
take up jobs outside their home countries. The
EURAXESS job portal lists thousands of vacan-
cies and fellowships from more than 40 Euro-
pean countries and other parts of the world
including China, India and the US. More than
200 EURAXESS Service Centres operate in
40 European countries to help researchers and
their families with things like work regulations,
taxation and social security.

Other obstacles to mobility exist, which
need to be tackled by policymakers – for ex-
ample, making sure that researchers can move
from one EU country to another without losing

An open
labour market
for researchers

More effective
national research
systems

MAIN
PRIORITIES
OF ERA

Optimal circulation,
access to and
transfer of scientific
knowledge

Gender equality
and gender
mainstreaming
in research

Optimal
transnational
co-operation and
competition

HORIZON magazine 25

E N L A R G E M E N T

B Y R E X M E R R I F I E L D

How the fall of the

BERLIN

‘Without the Framework Programmes,
we would have never reached this stage.’

– Professor Anton Anton,

former Romanian Secretary of State for Research

26 HORIZON magazine

T he fall of the Wall and the other momen-

tous changes in Eastern and Central
Europe from 1989 opened up new pos-
sibilities for researchers to meet and col-
laborate with their Western European counterparts
and gave them hope of new partnerships.

‘After these changes there was an extra-
ordinary opening towards international research,’
said Professor Anton Anton, a lecturer in Romania
at the time and now professor of hydraulics and
environmental protection at the University of
Civil Engineering in Bucharest. ‘Researchers were
very positive.’

New efforts were made at European Com-
munity level to encourage cooperation previous-
ly impossible because of the Iron Curtain, and
‘science diplomacy’ was recognised as encour-
aging European cultural reunification when
other paths were still difficult.

‘We realised it would not be easy to become
part of the European research community, but
there was a lot of enthusiasm, a lot of optimism,’
said Dr Jan Krzysztof Frackowiak, of the Polish
Academy of Sciences. He was a physicist before
becoming Deputy Science Minister of Poland for
14 years from 1991.

WALL

transformed Europe’s
research landscape

The collapse of communism in the Eastern Bloc
in 1989 redrew the map of Europe,
and the aftershocks were also felt strongly
in the foundations of European research.

Schemes such as PECO/COPERNICUS, launched
in 1992 with funding of EUR 55 million, encour-
aged new ways of working together for Central
and Eastern European countries seen as poten-
tial future members of the EU.

EASTWARD GROWTH

Along with scientific and technical research
fellowships, it also provided for project-by-pro-
ject participation in parts of the Framework
Programmes, with joint activities on the envi-
ronment, health, information and communica-
tion technology, materials, agriculture and food.
‘The special actions played a very important
role for us in gaining experience of European
rules and methods,’ Dr Frackowiak said. ‘Later
on this meant we could gradually take on more
important roles.’

Identifying the Central and Eastern Europe-
an countries as a focus played a large role in the
expansion of the Framework Programmes. This
eastward growth continued through the 1990s
and into the next decade, when 10 Central and
Eastern European countries were to join the
European Union.

By the Fourth Framework Programme (FP4)
in 1994, COPERNICUS was included in a specific
programme of International Cooperation (INCO).

SMOOTHER KNEES

Participation was still on a project-by-project
basis, on limited themes, but once the countries
were on track for EU membership and became
associates of the Framework Programmes, their
participation increased. By the Sixth Framework
Programme, which began in 2002, Poland for
instance was proposing advanced projects as
a coordinator and it was to lead more than 180
consortiums in the Seventh Framework Pro-
gramme (FP7), in the specific programmes of
People, Ideas and Cooperation, and the Research
Potential (REGPOT).

These have included a selection of prominent
projects ranging from information technology,
security, and energy efficiency to nanotechnology.

HORIZON magazine 27

COMBINED BENEFITS

For new Member States, the benefits of the
Framework Programmes have, in many cases,
been multiplied by using EU Structural Funds to
develop new laboratories and modern facilities
for research.

Austria, Finland and Sweden already had
very well developed research infrastructure when
they joined the European Union in 1995. But
Spain has shown the benefits of combining these
different forms of European funding to transform
its relatively underdeveloped research system in
the 1980s to world-class status.

The Extreme Light Infrastructure (ELI)
project shows a similar synergy in Romania,
Hungary and the Czech Republic, where some
of the most intense lasers ever made are being
built for research.

The preparatory phase was carried out under
FP7 and the three facilities are being developed
with support from the Structural Funds. They
are expected to be operational by 2018 and
to host substantial Framework Programme
research in fundamental physics, mate-
rials, pharmacology, cancer and X-ray
and gamma ray imaging.

‘This is one of the main benefits
for us,’ said Prof. Anton, who is also
a former Romanian government
minister and Secretary of State for
Research. ‘Without the Framework
Programmes, we would have never
reached this stage.’ ■

E N L A R G E M E N T

Among the Polish-led advanced nanotechnolo-
gy projects in FP7 have been the ENSEMBLE
study of self-organising electromagnetic struc-
tures and SUPERSONIC, looking at depositing
layers of lubricating solid nanoparticles to ease
the use of wind turbines, aeroplane engines or
even artificial knees.

Developing research capacity has benefited
greatly from participation in the Framework
Programmes, which have kept growing with
the EU itself. From EUR 13.1 billion at the start
of FP4, when the European Union had just
12 Member States, the funding has swelled to
EUR 80 billion for the 28-strong European Union
of Horizon 2020.

EU
ENLARGEMENT
SINCE 1957

CROATIA
2013

ROMANIA AND BULGARIA
2007

2004

ESTONIA,CYPRUS,LATVIA, LITHUANIA, HUNGARY,MALTA,POLAND,SLOVA

AUSTRIA, FINLAND AND SWEDEN
1995

KIA
A
N
D
S
L
O
V
E
N
I
A

LIC,

B
U
P
E
R
H
C
E
Z
C

SPAIN AND PORTUGAL
1986

GREECE
1981

ARK,IRELANDAND
1973
TH
E
U
K

M
N
E
D

1957

SIX FOUNDING MEMBERS:

BELGIUM, GERM ANY, FR ANCE, ITALY, THE NE THERL ANDS, LUXEMBOURG

28 HORIZON magazine

E N L A R G E M E N T

Professor Enric Banda

The success of Spain:
research has flourished since it joined the EU

B Y R E X M E R R I F I E L D

Since it joined the EU, Spain’s research has
expanded sharply in capacity and in outlook,
according to Professor Enric Banda, former
Spanish Secretary of State for Universities and
Research.

How have the Framework Programmes
encouraged participation in research and
innovation in Spain?
‘When we joined the European Community in
1986 our research and development system was
not very strong, so it was extremely useful for
us to join. When countries join there is a peak
in enthusiasm and this was clearly the case for
the scientific community in Spain. Through
encouragement by the Framework Programmes
people were very pleased to work with other
Europeans, so from the research and innovation
point of view it was a very good opportunity.
Since then, the Framework Programmes have
really encouraged research and innovation in
Spain in an extraordinary way.’

Can you elaborate on what you mean
by extraordinary?
‘The Framework Programmes gave us a new
injection of morale, of money, of enthusiasm
and of knowledge, in terms of working together
with European colleagues. Of course many of
our researchers were already well connected
in Europe, but the Framework Programmes
meant we could join new networks and take
part in new projects.’

What would you see as the major benefits
and successes resulting from Spain’s
participation in the Framework
Programmes?
‘The impact of the Framework Programmes has
been enormous, particularly in integration and
networking. Integration of new Member States
does not only mean funding research and at-
tending meetings; it is also about joining com-
munities, working together and being part of
a greater system. Networks with colleagues in

‘I was principal
investigator for projects
involving geothermal
energy that wouldn’t
have happened without
the Framework
Programmes.’

– Professor Enric Banda,

former Spanish Secretary of State
for Universities and Research

other EU countries provide the means for col-
laboration and internationalisation, and science
is international, after all. It has also increased
access to knowledge, and resources to bring
more skills and talent to Spain.’

Can you give any concrete examples?
‘This was the case in many disciplines, includ-
ing for my own field, earth sciences, which was
not even at the core of the European pro-
grammes. I was principal investigator for pro-
jects involving geothermal energy that wouldn’t
have happened without the Framework Pro-
grammes. And the fact that we had the oppor-
tunity to join European projects meant that
active researchers, working at the laboratory
bench, had much more mobility. They could
participate in scientific meetings, with new
possibilities for working together.’

How has that changed during
the financial crisis?
‘The impact of the crisis has been dramatic.
It has meant a very big reduction in the science
budget in Spain and this has major implica-
tions. We are able to attract fewer researchers
than before, some of those who came to Spain
have left again and some of our own scientists
have been leaving to take jobs abroad. And it
has affected the basic sciences a lot. This has
meant more Spanish researchers now turn to
the Framework Programmes and the ERC
(European Research Council) grants for sup-
port. In that sense, the Framework Programmes
can help. But we cannot assume that Brussels
or elsewhere will be the solution, we have to
have a solid, national science budget. Particu-
larly in a knowledge society, you need talent and
innovation and those need resources.’ ■

HORIZON magazine 29

I N T E R N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I O N

B Y R E X M E R R I F I E L D

‘With the movement of people in the world these days
and with the movements of diseases, there are no borders.’

– Dr Aldo Tagliabue,

researcher from ALTA, Italy

The EU has been
collaborating
thematically with
non-member countries
since the 1980s.

Research collaboration spanning Europe

and the Mediterranean region has gen-
erated crucial understanding of the
changing Mediterranean ecosystem,
helping to protect communities which rely on
fishing and tourism.

It’s the kind of progress that was only made
possible by a European drive to develop research
collaboration focused on specific regions of the
world.

The European Union has been collaborating
thematically with non-member countries since
the early 1980s. In addition to collaboration in
health, environment and agriculture through the
specific programme Science and Technology for
Development, in 1984 the EU started bilateral
international scientific cooperation actions with
countries in Latin America, in Asia and in the
Mediterranean region.

The EU followed this up in 1993 with the
largest of its research projects at this time, the
Mediterranean Targeted Project initiative, under
the Marine Science and Technology programme
(MAST).

‘For the first time, researchers from different
disciplines accustomed to working on specific
sites in the east and west Mediterranean basin
linked their studies,’ said Dr Elisabeth Lipiatou,
who now heads the European Neighbourhood,
Africa and the Gulf unit at the European Com-
mission’s Directorate-General for Research and
Innovation.

The results of observations and modelling
were the subject of a vast multidisciplinary
debate bringing together around 200 scientists
from 70 institutions in 14 European countries,
plus Morocco and Tunisia. Important findings
included evidence of climate change in the deep
waters of the eastern Mediterranean, and new
understanding of how this ecosystem works.
These led to new opportunities for climate mod-
elling and coastal management.

‘This had important implications for many
people throughout the region,’ Dr Lipiatou said.
Collaborative research initiatives such as
AVICENNE, which was launched in 1992 to ex-
plore the potential for collaboration across the
Mediterranean, accompanied the evolution of

30 HORIZON magazine

CrossingcontinentstoprotectLIVELIHOODSEU-Mediterranean cooperation in science and
technology in the early 1990s.

Euro-Mediterranean collaboration marks
the most developed example of inter-regional
cooperation in science and technology.

Other Euro-Mediterranean projects have
included topics such as the impact of climate
change, the effect of lead pollution from vehicle
emissions on sea life, and the consequences of
excess fertilizers and effluent for the marine
environment.

‘Over and above the important scientific
outcomes, the Framework Programmes have
helped to create a community of scientists and
a regional conscience for the Mediterranean
region in science, technology and innovation,’
Dr Lipiatou said.

GLOBAL CHALLENGES

With the Fourth Framework Programme in
1994, the Science and Technology for Develop-
ment and International Scientific Cooperation

schemes were integrated into the specific pro-
gramme ‘International Cooperation’. While the
emphasis has evolved with geopolitical changes
and European priorities, international coopera-
tion has been a feature of the Framework Pro-
grammes ever since.

As well as specific international cooperation
activities, all parts of the Framework Pro-
grammes have been open to teams from non-EU
countries since 2002.

The fields of cooperation can vary according
to the different groups of countries: developing
countries, those in the neighbourhood, such as
the Mediterranean countries, and Eastern Euro-
pean states, emerging economies, and industri-
alised countries such as the US and Japan.

However, cooperation is always based on the
principles of mutual benefit and common interest.
Industrial countries, for instance, have been
involved in research projects in genome se-
quencing and climate change. In working with
developing countries in Africa, the Framework
Programmes have given strong support to re-
search on agriculture and infectious diseases,

The Framework Programmes
have helped finance research
collaborations with developing
countries in Africa to focus on
agriculture and infectious diseases.

with particular backing for actions to find new
treatments and vaccines for HIV/AIDS, tubercu-
losis and malaria, such as the European Malaria
Vaccine Initiative (EMVI).

‘With the movement of people in the world
these days and with the movements of diseas-
es, there are no borders,’ said Dr Aldo Tagliabue,
a researcher who has been working on immu-
nology, biotechnology and vaccines over a num-
ber of decades. His company, ALTA, based in
Italy, manages Framework Programme projects
with partners ranging from Europe to South
Africa, China, the US and Brazil.

‘Certainly in human health, you have to take
that into account and you have to work like that
too,’ he said.

International cooperation remains a special
feature of the strategic approach embraced in
Horizon 2020, providing for bilateral as well as
regional and multilateral cooperation with part-
ners such as the southern Mediterranean coun-
tries, where the research and innovation part-
nership has gained new momentum despite
upheavals in the region in recent years. ■

HORIZON magazine 31

INEUROPEandbeyondI N T E R N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I O N

Professor Manfred Horvat

International cooperation in research
is more important now than ever

B Y R E X M E R R I F I E L D

Europe needs to cooperate with increasingly
innovative countries such as China and Brazil
if it is to become more competitive, according
to Professor Manfred Horvat, an adviser to
the EU who has been involved in internation-
al cooperation since the early 1990s.

‘In the new millennium, the Framework Pro-
grammes played a key role in strengthening
the links to the newly emerging BRIC coun-
tries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), while
also being instrumental in strengthening co-
operation with the US.’

How is international cooperation in
the Framework Programmes helping to
improve EU competitiveness?
‘It is even more important than before. There
are many aspects where we have to be aware of
the new landscape of knowledge production
and innovation in the world. An example is
China, which is progressing so fast in many

‘Europe has to play
a leading role
in all the aspects
of globalisation,
and research
and innovation are
important elements
of that process.’

– Professor Manfred Horvat,
independent expert for European
and international research and
technology cooperation

How important is the international
cooperation aspect of research and
technological development to
the European Union?
‘I think it has always been an important asset
of the Framework Programmes and nowadays
even more so, since science and technology and
innovation has become ever more global. The
Framework Programme is the largest competi-
tive collaborative programme worldwide, and
the only one that is totally open to collaboration
with countries all over the world.

‘Europe has to play a leading role in all the
aspects of globalisation, and research and inno-
vation are important elements of that process.’

How did international cooperation become
such an integral part of the Framework
Programmes?
‘International cooperation started in the First
and Second Framework Programmes as devel-
opment aid. Later it became a broader activ-
ity, with a very big role in the integration of
countries that subsequently became new
Member States.

‘Towards the end of the 1990s and in the
following years, the integration of researchers
and research institutions from the Western
Balkan countries in the Framework Pro-
gramme was a first step for them, just a short
time after they had been at war.

32 HORIZON magazine

aspects. For example, it is in a strong position
in information and communication technolo-
gy and even in industrial processes it has been
very innovative. The same is also probably true
for countries like Brazil.

‘Research and innovation cooperation
with developing countries, such as in Africa,
will in the long run ensure a strong position of
the EU in these countries in scientific, eco-
nomic and social terms.

‘The new emphasis on innovation opens
new opportunities but will need also in-depth
dialogues and clear agreements with partner
countries to define the rules of the game,
especially on issues such as intellectual prop-
erty rights.’

How do you see the development of
international cooperation in future
Framework Programmes?
‘The new strategic approach for EU interna-
tional cooperation requires an appropriate
supporting framework. First, the implementa-
tion of the approach calls for a master plan for
integrating the international dimension across
the Framework Programme with consistent
plans also for the programme’s specific ele-
ments. Secondly, defining a coordination and
monitoring function in the Commission should
ensure overall coherence when facilitating the
strategy development with partner countries
and regions.

‘Finally, we need to use more strategic
intelligence, more in-depth knowledge and
insight as well as foresight into what is going
on all over the world, to identify the trends
and emerging areas that are interesting for
European collaboration.’ ■

I N T E R N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I O N

‘Science is one of
the most globalised
activities on earth
at the moment.’

– Professor Peter Piot

from the London School of Hygiene
and Tropical Medicine, UK

The combined effort of the European
Commission, EU Member States,
developing countries, donors and
industry has resulted in a programme
of clinical trials against HIV/AIDS,
tuberculosis and malaria in Africa which
has funded hundreds of research
projects in the last 10 years.

The European & Developing Countries Clinical
Trials Partnership (EDCTP) is working to combat
these three diseases, which taken together kill
more than 3.4 million people across the world
every year, as well as other infectious diseases
such as Leishmaniasis and sleeping sickness.

Together with other large-scale initiatives
such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,
the programme is working on new vaccines,
treatments and approaches to help ease the
burden of disease, with a particular focus on
sub-Saharan Africa.

‘I think it has produced high-quality re-
search, while at the same time strengthening
research capacity in Africa,’ said Professor Peter
Piot from the London School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine, UK, and a former executive
‘But of
director of the UNAIDS programme.
course it is only one tiny piece of the Framework
Programmes.’

While the EDCTP is a public-private partner-
ship involving the European Union and European
and African participating states, the EU has

made the study of developing-world diseases
a priority for the Framework Programmes since
the 1980s.

Collaboration with researchers and institu-
tions from outside the European Union has been
a crucial part of this, particularly in developing
links with countries where these diseases have
the biggest impact.

‘If we really want to make an impact even-
tually in fighting these diseases, the people in
these countries have to be involved in every step
of the process, and that includes in the research
itself,’ said Dr Cornelius Schmaltz, deputy head
of the European Commission’s Fighting Infectious
Diseases and Global Epidemics unit at the Direc-
torate-General for Research and Innovation.

Successive Framework Programmes have
evolved ways to encourage participation from
international partners in the affected regions,
including grants with lighter administrative
loads, staff exchanges through the Marie
Skłodowska-Curie actions, and collaboration
schemes.

Prof. Piot sees being open to international
cooperation in research as crucial to future
European success.

‘Science is one of the most globalised ac-
tivities on earth at the moment,’ he said. ‘So
think global, of Europe as part of a global re-
search enterprise. After all, frankly, the only real
hope for our future is in innovation and science
and entrepreneurship.’ ■

EUROPEAN RESEARCH
COOPERATION WITH
OTHER REGIONS OF THE WORLD

Africa

Number of participants
819

Participant EU contribution
EUR 126.9 million

Asia

Number of participants
954

Participant EU contribution
EUR 110.5 million

Caribbean

Number of participants
26

Participant EU contribution
EUR 3.3 million

Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Number of participants
1 075

Participant EU contribution
EUR 119.6 million

Latin America

Number of participants
723

Participant EU contribution
EUR 94.8 million

Mediterranean Partner countries

Number of participants
3 659

Participant EU contribution
EUR 1 108.1 million

Other

Number of participants
1 255

Participant EU contribution
EUR 131.9 million

Pacific

Number of participants
10

Participant EU contribution
EUR 1.3 million

Western Balkan countries

Number of participants
556

Participant EU contribution
EUR 84.6 million

(All data cover the period
of the Seventh Framework Programme 2007-2013)

HORIZON magazine 33

OVER60COUNTRIESFIGHTINGDISEASEINAFRICABYREXMERRIFIELDR E S E A R C H E R S

The researchers who CROSSED

Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions have been designed
to promote excellence in research by giving
grants to scientists who needed to move
country to further their careers.

34 HORIZON magazine

BORDERS for science

B Y J O N C A R T W R I G H T

In recent decades researchers have travelled

abroad in greater and greater numbers, and
it’s helped a generation of scientists learn
from each other.

‘In terms of research it is quite important
that you are exposed to different ways of work-
ing, different people and different cultures,
because in the end research is highly collabora-
tive and interdisciplinary,’ said Spanish neuro-
scientist Dr Xoana Troncoso.

‘If you stay in the same place throughout
your career you are going to miss things that
you didn’t even know existed.’

Dr Troncoso first travelled from Galicia in
Spain to the UK to complete her PhD studies,
and then went to the United States where she
took two postdoctoral research positions, one
in Phoenix, Arizona, and one at the California
Institute of Technology.

In 2012, she received a Marie Curie award
to come back to Europe to study how the human
brain uses vision to interpret motion at France’s
national science centre CNRS. Her research
forms part of the EU’s Future Emerging Technol-
ogies project BrainScaleS, which is trying to
understand how the brain processes information
and the implications for bio-inspired computing.
The 37-year-old hopes that the fact that
she is now managing a Marie Curie grant will put
her in a good position to secure one of Europe’s
highly sought-after permanent research posts.

EARLY HELP

The EU has been helping researchers like
DrTroncoso since the early days of the Framework
Programmes. Along with the First Framework
Programme in 1984 came the launch of a pro-
gramme called Stimulation, which – while pro-
moting basic research – was designed to encour-
age the networking and mobility of researchers.
For example, it offered funding to those who
wanted to collaborate on projects, or grants to
young researchers who wanted to broaden their
outlook by attending conferences abroad.

HORIZON magazine 35

R E S E A R C H E R S

‘If you stay in the same
place throughout your
career you are going
to miss things that
you didn’t even know
existed.’

- Dr Xoana Troncoso,
neuroscientist, CNRS

Stimulation was renamed Science in the Second
Framework Programme. While budgets in-
creased, so too did the focus on the career-
fostering aspects, explained Manuela Soares,
Director of the Transport programme at the EU’s
Directorate-General for Research and Innova-
tion. ‘In the Science Programme the emphasis
was on accepting project proposals from scien-
tists, the bottom-up approach,’ she said. ‘But the
emphasis changed with each programme.’

Stimulation and Science paved the way for
what is widely considered the EU’s greatest
contribution towards individual careers: the
Marie Curie actions of the Sixth Framework
Programme in 2002.

Named after the Polish scientist who over-
came tremendous societal odds to pioneer re-
search into radioactivity – and to win Nobel
Prizes in both physics and chemistry for her
discoveries – the Marie Curie actions were de-
signed to promote excellence in research by
giving grants to scientists who needed to move
country to further their careers.

Now called the Marie Skłodowska-Curie
actions (MSCA) within Horizon 2020, the pro-
gramme allows researchers at any stage of their
career – irrespective of their age or nationality
or field of work – to gain experience in labora-
tories, universities, and non-academic settings
provided that they are internationally mobile.

Mobility is a crucial requirement for scien-
tists given the hugely collaborative nature of
science itself. Working in a research institution in
another country can enrich a researcher’s career
although it is not always easy in a continent

36 HORIZON magazine

of such varying languages and cultures. Still,
along with its predecessor, the MSCA pro-
gramme has helped so far some 80 000 re-
searchers overcome these barriers. During the
Seventh Framework Programme alone it funded
10 000 PhDs.

‘It came gradually, but

today Marie
Skłodowska-Curie is seen as a benchmark of
excellence,’ said Soares.

OTHER SUPPORT

The MSCA programme may be the chief initia-
tive that has helped researchers’ careers, but
it is not alone. Collaborative research projects
and grants from the European Research Council,
for example, have also made an important
contribution.

In addition, the EU has adopted a European
Charter for Researchers and a Code of Conduct
for the Recruitment of Researchers, both of
which outline certain principles concerning the
respective roles and responsibilities of research-
ers and their employers.

Dr Troncoso believes the facilities are in
place for researchers to help them adapt to each
new country, however she fears that there is still
too much uncertainty for researchers on wheth-
er they can secure one of a dwindling number
of fixed positions after having travelled around
Europe or further afield.

‘At some point you need to settle down,’ she
said. ‘That’s something that science needs to
figure out.’ ■

MARIE SKŁODOWSKA-CURIE
ACTIONS
2014-2020

€ 6.2
billion budget

65000
researchers to be supported

140+
different nationalities

38%
of researchers are female

INTERNATIONAL APPEAL

The vast majority of non-EU researchers
are now interested in taking their careers
to Europe, according to the MORE2 study
(which surveyed some 4 000 individual
non-EU researchers) funded by the Euro-
pean Commission.

The study found that nine-tenths of re-
searchers who had never previously
worked in the EU were interested in doing
so, and 72 % of researchers who had pre-
viously worked in the EU would have liked
to stay on.

http://www.more-2.eu

R E S E A R C H E R S

It was in the Second Framework
Programme that the European Commission
introduced a human resources component
to help researchers’ careers. You had
a hand in that, didn’t you?
‘That’s a curious story. In 1986, having be-
come the president of the Portuguese Nation-
al Science and Technology Board, I attended
the Council of Research Ministers where
I suggested that human resources needed to be
made a new priority. At that time, the approv-
al of the Framework Programme by research
ministerial delegations had to be taken at
unanimity. Near the end of the discussions,

Professor José Mariano Gago

The most urgent priority
for science policy in Europe should be
to increase investment in research

B Y J O N C A R T W R I G H T

Public funding for research is dangerously low
in many countries and collective action needs to
be taken, according to Professor José Mariano
Gago, a physicist and former Portuguese Minis-
ter for Science, Technology and Higher Education.

What was it about Europe that allowed you
to be successful in your career?
‘My entire scientific career was developed at
CERN (the European Organization for Nu-
clear Research) together with the Portuguese
Laboratory of Instrumentation and Experi-
mental Particle Physics (LIP), which I created
later. CERN, an intergovernmental particle
physics laboratory, is certainly the most out-
standing example of collaborative scientific
success in Europe. In its field of research there
is no brain drain of scientists to countries
outside of Europe; on the contrary, CERN
draws in scientists from all over the world who
bring their talent, their resources, and their
technical and industrial expertise.’

my suggestion for making human resources
a new priority in the Framework Programme
was adopted and the Portuguese delegation
indicated that it was key to achieving a unan-
imous vote on the whole programme.

‘This bold and unusual position helped
the EU to progress. Portugal’s initiative and
vote were due to, on the one hand, a commit-
ment to high-level training, particularly
abroad, of researchers over a long period. On
the other hand, we were convinced that a more
European and less nationalistic approach to
the doctoral and postdoctoral training of re-
searchers was essential for Europe, and that it
would also provide the best external environ-
ment for the fast development of Portugal’s
science and technology.

‘I am now convinced that the EU pro-
grammes for human resources for science and
technology have been extremely important for
research in Europe, although they are still
unacceptably limited in their dimension.’

Why are they limited?
‘The intensity of research and development
has been stale for many years, because public
funding levels for research are much too low.
The EU is not a federal state. When we speak
of public funding for research we are therefore
speaking mainly of national funding, which

in many countries across Europe has dimin-
ished or remained dangerously limited. Using
our collective efforts to overcome this problem
must be a priority.

‘Overall, qualified human resources for
science and technology are today the most
precious asset for the EU and for each of its
nations. Preserving, expanding and improving
such an asset, nationally as well as internation-
ally, should, in my view, be recognised as the
most urgent issue for science and technology
policies in Europe.’

In your role as Portugal’s Minister for
Science and Technology, you promoted
scientific education and culture.
Do you think this will ultimately improve
the European research environment?
‘Yes, absolutely. One of the projects in Portugal
in which I have been involved is Ciência Viva,
which is a national movement to help develop
opportunities for scientists and non-scientists
to interact. It has empowered science teachers
across the country while promoting experi-
mental science education and close ties be-
tween schools, science centres, and research
laboratories.’ ■

‘The intensity of research
and development has been
stale for many years, because
public funding levels for
research are much too low.’

– Professor José Mariano Gago,

former Portuguese Minister for Science,
Technology and Higher Education

HORIZON magazine 37

R E S E A R C H E R S

The fight for
EQUALITY
is still with us

B Y J O N C A R T W R I G H T

‘It isn’t enough to promote it intellectually:
successful women need to be visible
role models.’

– Dr Claudie Haigneré,
President, Universciences

Even though women have been well repre-

sented in Europe’s laboratories since the
start of the Framework Programmes, the
number of female professors remains
stubbornly low, therefore we need to promote
stories of successful women, says Dr Claudie
Haigneré, a former astronaut and the president
of Universcience, a French centre that teaches
young people the value of scientific and tech-
nological discoveries.

Based on your experience, how do you
think we could attract equal numbers of
boys and girls to scientific studies?
Is it a question of image or upbringing
or education, for example?
‘The truth is that there are too many countries
where parity is not achieved; and yes women are

38 HORIZON magazine

still reluctant to progress into certain sectors of
science and technology – like computer science,
physics, maths, or engineering. In France, at
present, 27.8 % of students in these fields are
women; yet we know that for instance girls
perform as well as boys in mathematics. Girls
censor themselves; they lack confidence. Edu-
cation and family have an important role in
this, because they teach girls not to expect
things. I would say that education should be at
the heart of a change of attitudes. Education in
school, the formal way, and also the informal
education you find in science centres and mu-
seums, where there is maybe more freedom to
be creative. At Universcience, we take very se-
riously our responsibility to provide citizens
with a democratic space – where everyone is
equal – to engage with science.’

There is the problem not only of women
leaving research, but of those who stay in
research not being promoted to the best
jobs. Why is that, and what can we do to
address it?
‘There is a lack of confidence, but I would say
also there can be a tendency in selection com-
mittees – even by women in those committees
– to discriminate against women. So the fight
for equality must be undertaken everywhere.’

You have been involved in several
initiatives to promote gender equality
in research, such as the L’Oréal-UNESCO
Award for Women in Science. How
important have those awards been?
‘Reports have clearly shown that the success
stories of women in science are not visible

Dr Claudie Haigneré

enough, yet we know that women who are
successful can act as multipliers to promote
equality in science. Young ambassadors are
particularly important, because the younger
generation are inspired by the generation that
is closest to them.

‘Awards such as the L’Oréal-UNESCO are
important, because the winners can serve as
role models and inspire others in the future.
Women must be fully committed to inspiring
younger women and, beyond being mere ex-
amples of success, they must communicate
their passion for their work.’

What’s the risk if we do nothing?
‘Integrating the gender dimension into basic
and applied research encourages excellence in
science, engineering, research and policy.
Today this is done through strategies, pro-
grammes and projects, but it needs to be
promoted at all stages of the research cycle.

‘If women scientists are not visible, and if
their successful careers are not in public view,
they cannot serve as role models to attract
young women into scientific professions and
convince them to build research careers. It’s
vital that this waste of talent is addressed if we
are to boost European competitiveness and
innovation.’ ■

HORIZON magazine 39

I

n

t

o

t

h

e

40 HORIZON magazine

F R O N T I E R R E S E A R C H

Europe’s support
for frontier research
takes scientists deep into
the Atlantic Ocean

B Y J O N C A R T W R I G H T

Under Horizon 2020
EUR 13 billion has been
allocated to frontier
research through the
European Research
Council (ERC).

Thousands of metres below the Atlantic

Ocean live strange types of coral that no
human has ever set eyes on. Or at least
that was true until last year, when a group
of researchers began investigating the uncharted
abyss with a remotely-operated vehicle.

It’s the kind of speculative research that is
only possible thanks to a EUR 2 million grant
from the European Research Council (ERC),
which funded the specialist equipment required
and a team of scientists to use it.

‘We were able to charter a ship, get access
to a state-of-the-art underwater vehicle and
equip the lab with a new laser for making age-
determinations,’ said geochemist Dr Laura
Robinson at the University of Bristol, UK.

The research could help our understanding
of the impact of the climate on fragile ecosys-
tems. For example, it could shed light on the
extent to which dissolved carbon dioxide stifles
the growth of deep-sea corals, which host nu-
merous species of fish and invertebrates.

Robinson’s is just one of many projects that
have been made possible by the ERC – a body
that aims to foster frontier research. Unlike
other EU funding mechanisms, the ERC allows
researchers to come up with their own ideas for
projects, rather than be led by pre-defined goals.
The ERC, which operates as an executive
agency of the European Commission, is run by
a scientific council, a group of 22 independent
academics, who establish the ERC strategy,
monitor the quality of operations and oversee

HORIZON magazine 41

F R O N T I E R R E S E A R C H

‘You mustn’t ignore
basic research.
You’ll always need
that to take the next step.’

– Professor Des Smith,

Director, Edinburgh Biosciences, UK

Optical logic circuits – where light replaces electric
current – could enable the construction of powerful
light-based computers.

winning mathematician John Nash, to under-
standing the neurobiological processes that lead
us to acquire knowledge, to the impact of fam-
ily break-up on society, and the fall of Com-
munism in Eastern Europe.

There are also frontier research projects
currently taking place that have been funded by
other parts of Horizon 2020. For example, in the
long-running Future and Emerging Technologies
programme, the Graphene Flagship has been
tasked with taking the one-atom-thick material
from the realm of academic laboratories into
European society in the space of 10 years,
thereby generating economic growth, new jobs
and new opportunities for Europeans both as
investors and employees. ■

Making graphene can be as simple as peeling sellotape off a block of charcoal, however the one-atom-thick
carbon is giving engineers a radical new tool that is incredibly strong, highly conductive, and bendable.

the implementation of the programme at the
scientific level.

However, the EU was backing frontier re-
search before the formation of the ERC, even if
it was not doing so explicitly and on the same
scale. The Stimulation programme, which was
part of the First Framework Programme in 1984,
allowed researchers to come up with their own
ideas for research projects and balanced the
rest of the Framework Programme’s emphasis
on applied research. The same was true of the
Science programme, which continued from
Stimulation in 1987 until 1991.

LOGIC CIRCUIT

The European Joint Optical Bistability (EJOB)
project was one of the projects under these
programmes. In 1986, scientists taking part in
the EJOB project demonstrated the prototype
of a basic logic circuit that processed light in-
stead of electric current. This result kick-started
the field of optical logic, which some research-
ers believe could still offer a means to build
more powerful, light-based computers.

Professor Des Smith, a physicist who par-
ticipated in the EJOB project and who now helps
run the company Edinburgh Biosciences in the
UK, believes frontier research is just as impor-
tant as applied research.

He gives the example of the first computer
revolution, which would not have been possible
without the discovery of semiconductors in

42 HORIZON magazine

solid-state physics. ‘The lesson is, you mustn’t
ignore basic research,’ he said. ‘You’ll always
need that to take the next step.’

However, it was not until the introduction in
2000 of the Lisbon Strategy, which emphasised
the need for a knowledge-based European econ-
omy, that plans for a large-scale, pan-European
frontier research funding body really began to
take shape.

Since it was formed in 2007 with the Sev-
enth Framework Programme (FP7), the ERC has
backed some 4 500 projects out of more than
43 000 applications.

The ERC is remarkable for the scale of its
funding. Under FP7, its budget was EUR 7.5 bil-
lion. That sum has been increased by approxi-
mately three quarters to EUR 13 billion under
Horizon 2020, making it equal in nominal terms
to the entire budget of the Fourth Framework
Programme.

For the first time since the end of the
1970s, the ERC offers grants that do not have
transnational cooperation as an assessment
criterion, and because of the investigator-driven
nature of its funding, it has helped promising
young researchers to sidestep the career hier-
archies that often prevent them getting funding
for novel projects in their own institutions.

Of course, not knowing where research will
take you can lead to some creative proposals.
Today, if you take a look through the ERC-fund-
ed frontier research projects that is just the
case: there is everything from exploring the
types of singularity posed by the Nobel Prize-

F R O N T I E R R E S E A R C H

Professor Pierre Papon

Frontier Research breakthroughs
may not bear fruit until decades later

B Y J O N C A R T W R I G H T

With the formation of the European Research
Council (ERC) in 2007, the EU has given
a substantial boost to frontier research. Now
we just need to allow it time to produce re-
sults, says Professor Pierre Papon, a former
director-general of the French National
Center for Scientific Research (CNRS).

Surely all science is conducted with
an open mind. What is it, then, that defines
frontier research?
‘Frontier research is science that is related to
understanding the laws of nature, without any
direct concern about practical applications.

It wasn’t until the 1970s, when governments
considered that the technological competitive-
ness of European industry was a matter of
concern, that the EEC launched scientific pro-
grammes to support technology development.

‘The Framework Programmes have been
mission-oriented, although some of them have
involved what could be considered frontier
research. For example, in the 1990s, when
I was in charge of the French Research Insti-
tute for Exploitation of the Sea (IFREMER),
the Institute was involved in the MAST (Ma-
rine Science and Technology) programme
which supported research on the interactions

‘Today we might point to studies
of quantum physics, which are leading
to the development of new types of computers
and new types of information transfer.’

– Professor Pierre Papon,

physicist, former director-general of the French National Center
for Scientific Research (CNRS) and of IFREMER

Think about the discovery of the double-helix
structure of DNA by Francis Crick and James
Watson at Cambridge University, UK, in 1953.
Watson and Crick wanted to understand DNA
structure; at that time they did not consider any
practical applications of their discovery, which
instead came several decades later.’

Have the EU and its predecessors always
been interested in backing frontier
research?
‘No. The Treaty of Rome, which established
the European Economic Community (EEC)
in 1957, didn’t allow for the support of either
frontier research or mission-oriented research.

between the ocean and the atmosphere. Also
don’t forget about the Marie Curie fellowships
which were quite extensive. But the turning
point for frontier research was the creation of
the ERC in 2007.’

What prompted the establishment of an
EU institution like the ERC to fund frontier
research?
‘There were several concerns. First was the
health and wellbeing of European science com-
pared with that of the US and Japan, and Eu-
ropean scientists had been putting pressure on
their governments so that Europe would sup-
port frontier research. Second, the mechanism

for creating research projects was getting more
and more complicated as in general they in-
volved many partners and thus required cum-
bersome coordination.

‘Finally, you need to bring fresh blood into
science by giving young scientists money and
a chance to succeed. So that was another idea
behind the creation of the ERC: to give chances
to scientists in Europe and to bet on new ideas.’

What is your favourite example of a recent
frontier research success?
‘I mentioned the discovery of the structure of
DNA. But with frontier research we must
consider that often one only understands 20
or 30 years later that a discovery was a break-
through. At the time, in 1953, there were very
few articles in the press about the discovery.
There are other examples: the discovery of
nuclear fission, which opened the road to re-
actors for the generation of electricity; or the
application of microwaves to study matter
under radiation, which led to the phenomenon
of nuclear magnetic resonance which is now
a staple of medical imaging.

‘Today, we might point to studies of quan-
tum information, which may lead to the de-
velopment of new types of computers and new
methods for information transfer. Frontier
research is a long-term investment and you
have to always be patient.’ ■

HORIZON magazine 43

F R O N T I E R R E S E A R C H

The DNA of people with Type 2 diabetes is chemically marked with molecules that inhibit the ability of their muscles
to metabolise sugar and fat.

But the study did not end there. The research
team artificially contracted rodent muscle cells
in culture in the lab by stimulating them with
caffeine, and found that the same loss of methyl
groups occurred. This suggested that artificial
stimulation could give people the benefits of
exercise, even if a physical disability – for exam-
ple, being confined to a wheelchair – prevented
them from exercising normally.

Such therapy is probably a long way off, but
the prospect has at least been raised – and that
would not have come about without the ERC
grant, said Prof. Zierath. ‘Five years of sustained
funding at a high level allowed us a lot of breath-
ing room, a lot of freedom, and an opportunity to
relax and test different ideas,’ she added. ■

‘Five years of sustained
funding at a high level
allowed us a lot of
breathing room,
a lot of freedom, and
an opportunity to relax
and test different ideas.’

- Professor Juleen Zierath,

Karolinska Institute,
Stockholm, Sweden

FUNDING FOR THE
EUROPEAN RESEARCH
COUNCIL (ERC)
2007-2013

1 757

1 622

1 337

1 134

811

548

300

BUDGET

(in EUR million)

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

HOW DIABETES
RESEARCH
CHANGED THE WAY
WE VIEW EXERCISE

B Y J O N C A R T W R I G H T

The project began with a straight-
forward goal: to understand the
chemical basis of lifestyle-related
diabetes. But the results raised the
possibility of a solution to a very
different medical problem: helping
physically disabled people get the
benefits of exercise.

The project – which was backed by a European
Research Council (ERC) grant in 2008 – is a great
example of the importance of fontier research
according to its leader Professor Juleen Zierath,
a physiologist at the Karolinska Institute in
Stockholm. ‘I could hardly have imagined that
our research would take us in this direction,’
she said.

Since 1986, Prof. Zierath has been investi-
gating how lifestyle-related diabetes, known as
Type 2 diabetes, develops. Her group had dis-
covered that the DNA of people with the disease
is chemically ‘marked’ with more methyl groups
– a hydrocarbon – than normal.

That’s important because these methyl
groups inhibit the ability of the muscles to me-
tabolise sugar and fat. With fewer methyl groups
in place, the muscle finds exercise easier.

Her team had also discovered that these
markers disappear when obese people – who
are at greater risk of Type 2 diabetes – undergo
weight-loss surgery. Using her ERC grant, Prof.
Zierath then went on to prove that exercise,
which is known to reduce susceptibility to Type 2
diabetes, had the same effect on the number of
methyl group markers.

44 HORIZON magazine

Read more articles on
the 30th anniversary
of the Framework
Programmes and latest
news on EU-funded
research in Horizon
magazine

www.horizon-magazine

Further reading

André, M., “L’espace européen de la recherche : histoire d’une idée”, Revue
d’histoire de l’intégration européenne, Volume 12, Numéro 2, 2006,
p. 131-150.

Busquin, P., Louis, F., Le déclin de l’empire scientifique européen. Comment
enrayer la chute? Luc Pire, 2005.

Caracostas, P., Muldur, U., Society, The endless frontier, A European vision
of research and innovation policies for the 21st century, European
Communities, 1997.

Krige, J., Guzzetti, L., History of European Scientific and Technological
Cooperation, European Communities, 1997.

Madsen, C., Scientific Europe: Policies and Politics of the European
Research Area, Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd, 2010.

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation,

Contact: European Commission,

B-1049 Brussels

http://ec.europa.eu/research/

E-mail: RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting

on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use

which might be made of the following information.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015

44 – 210 x 275 mm

ISBN 978-92-79-40825-0

doi 10.2777/96026

© European Union, 2015

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

For use/reproduction of third-party copyright material specified

as such permission must be obtained from the copyright holder(s).

Images:

Cover & cover 2 © Fotolia

Page 1 © UE

Pages 2-3 © Fotolia

Page 5 © Walter Mönig

Pages 6-7 © Fotolia

Page 8 © UE

Page 9 © Image courtesy of ITER

Page 11, Roger Harris ©Science Photo Library

Pages 12 and 14, Ezéquiel Scagnetti © European Union

Page 18 (right) © Labo. Escourolle/Eurelios/Science Photo Library

Page 15 © Shutterstock

Pages 16-17 & 18 (left) © Fotolia

Page 20 © Fotolia

Page 21 © European Parliament

Pages 22-23, Thomas Vanden Driessche © European Union

Page 24 © European Parliament

Page 26, Christian Jungeblodt © Reporters/Laif

Page 31, Guy Stubbs © European Union

Page 32 © www.fotostudio-staudigl.at

Page 33, Claire Barrault © ECHO

Pages 34-35 © Fotolia

Page 39 © CSI-S Expilly

Page 40 © Fotolia

Page 41, Allison-Jacobel © Tropics

Page 42 (left) © ANIMATE4.COM/Science Photo Library

Page 42 (right), Jim Yost © Science Photo Library

Page 43 © Bruno Klein

Page 44 © Fotolia

Cover 3 & back cover © Fotolia

1

2

10

16

22

26

30

34

40

E D I T O R I A L

O V E R V I E W

S O C I E T Y

I N D U S T R Y & E C O N O M Y

E U R O P E A N R E S E A R C H A R E A

E N L A R G E M E N T

I N T E R N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I O N

R E S E A R C H E R S

F R O N T I E R R E S E A R C H

K

I
-
0
2
-
1
4
-
9
9
2
-
E
N
-
C

HORIZON

magazine

Exclusive insight
into the science
shaping the future
of Europe

Daily updates

Bringing you the cutting-edge
of EU-funded research

Written by independent
journalists on behalf of the
European Commission’s
Directorate-General for
Research and Innovation.

www.horizon-magazine.eu

In-depth features,
interviews and analysis