cross-border research collaboration in...

Cross-border Research Collaboration in EuropeSurvey of direct international cooperation in 2009 between European Research Funding Organisations and Research Performing Organisations in funding, managing and performing research

European Science Foundation

The European Science Foundation (ESF) was estab-lished in 1974 to provide a common platform for its Member Organisations to advance European research collaboration and explore new directions for research. It is an independent organisation, owned by 78 Member Organisations, which are research funding organisa-tions and research performing organisations, academies and learned societies from 30 countries. ESF promotes collaboration in research itself, in funding of research and in science policy activities at the European level.

EUROHORCs

EUROHORCs is the informal association of the heads of European research funding and research performing organisations. The acronym originates from “European Heads of Research Councils”. Since its establishment in 1992, EUROHORCs has become a key player in the field of European research policy by promoting and enhancing inter-council cooperation and by contributing actively to the development of the European Research Area. By creating an informal platform for discussion, producing policy statements and initiating joint activities, EUROHORCs seeks to strengthen European research policy.

2011

Contents

Foreword 3

I. Participating Organisations 5

II. Methodology 6

III. Summary of Main Findings 7

IV. Main Findings 8

1. Budget share for European and other international activities 8 2. Cross-border collaborations between organisations 9 FormalcooperationagreementswithorganisationsinotherEuropeancountries ‘MoneyFollowsResearcher’agreement Portabilityofgrantsoutsidethe‘MoneyFollowsResearcher’agreement FormalcooperationagreementswithorganisationsbeyondEurope ParticipationinjointprogrammeswithotherorganisationsinEurope 3. Cross-border funding 14 Legalmandatetofundresearchoutsidethecountry Commonpotsforfunding Opennessofnationalprogrammestoresearchersbasedabroad 4. Procedural issues 15 Jointcallsforproposals Jointpeerreview Jointdecisionmaking 5. The EUROHORCs-ESF European Young Investigator Award programme 17 Theconcept Jointproceduresandfunding Participationandoutcomebycountry 6. The European Collaborative Research Programmes scheme 17 Proceduresandfunding Preferredpartnersbycountry 7. Cross-border cooperation between individual researchers 21 Researchprojectsoutsideofformalagreementsandspecificschemes Publicationsstemmingfrominternationalcollaborations 8. Future plans and concerns 22 Demandforsupportforcross-bordercollaborationbynationalresearchcommunities Main legal hurdles to cross-border funding Planstoimplementexistingcooperationagreementsortolaunchnewones InitiativestodeveloptheEuropeanResearchArea 9. Joint research topics as stimuli for international research cooperation 25 10. Concluding remarks 26

V. Authors and acknowledgements 27

VI. Annexes 29 1. Organisationsparticipatinginthesurvey 30 2. Questionnaire 32 3. ListoforganisationshavingparticipatedintheEURYIAwardprogramme 38

Cross-borderResearchCollaborationinEurope 3

Foreword

RepresentativesofEuropeanMinistriesofResearch,theEuropeanHeadsofResearchCouncils(EUROHORCs)andtheEuropeanScienceFoundation(ESF)discussedinJanuary 2009 the contribution of national research organi-sationstothedevelopmentoftheEuropeanResearchArea.ItwasrealisedthatdatawerelargelylackingoncollaborationbetweenthoseEuropeanresearchfundingagenciesandresearchperformingorganisationsoutsideoftheFrameworkProgrammesoftheEuropeanCommission.Consequently,EUROHORCsinvitedESFtoconductasurveyondirectcross-bordercollaborationbetweentheirorganisations.Outofthethen45EUROHORCsmembers,32 tookpart in thesurvey inSpring2009,andESFsubmittedtheresultstoEUROHORCsinSummer2009.

Inordertoenlargethescopeofthesurvey,therebystrengtheningthevalidityofthetrendsobserved,ESFexpandedtheexercisetoresearchfundingandperformingorganisationsthatwerememberorganisationsofESFbutnotofEUROHORCs.Outofthese17organisations,eightresponded.Thus,thepresentsurveyaggregatesthedatafrom40researchfundingandperformingorganisations,covering25countries.

Theobjectivesofthesurveyin2009weretomapthelevelofdirectcooperationbetweenresearchfundingorganisationsandresearchperformingorganisations,aswellasbetweenresearchersandtheirteamsfundedby these organisations. It sought to analyse the intensity andformatsofcross-bordercollaboration,theextenttowhichjointprocedureswereimplemented,theareaswherecollaborationworkedparticularlywell,andthosewhereobstaclespersisted.

Sincetherealisationofthissurvey,EUROHORCsdissolvedin2011theirinformalassociation,andmostoftheresearchfundingandperformingorganisationsthatwereformerEUROHORCsmembersandareESFmembersfoundedScienceEurope.Sincecomprehensivedataoncross-bordercollaborationbetweenEuropeanresearchfundingandperformingorganisationsisstilllacking,wefeltitusefultoshareour2009databypublishingthem.

Professor Marja MakarowChiefExecutiveoftheEuropeanScienceFoundation (2007-2011)


TheMemberOrganisationsofESFfallintofourcatego-ries:1)publicresearchfundingorganisations,researchcouncil-typeagenciesthatmostlyawardcompetitivegrantsthroughopencallstoprincipalinvestigatorsandresearchteams;2)publicresearchperformingorganisa-tionsthatruninstitutesmostlyfundedfromdedicatedMinisterialbudgets.Someorganisationsfallintobothofthesecategories;3)Academiesthatrunresearchinstitutes;4)Academiesandlearnedsocietiesthatdonotfundorperformresearch.TheEUROHORCsmembersareheadsofeitherresearchfundingorperformingorganisations.

This survey targetedonly research fundersandperformers.Thus,all45EUROHORCsorganisationswereapproached,ofwhich32responded.Forty-fiveESFmemberorganisationsareresearchfundersor/andperformers.Outof32respondingEUROHORCsmembers,28aremembersofESF.Inaddition,17ESFmembers

whichareresearchfundingorperformingorganisations,butnotEUROHORCs,wereapproached,ofwhicheightresponded.The40organisationswhichparticipatedinthesurveyaredescribedinAnnex1.

Oftheparticipatingorganisations,28areresearchfunders,10researchperformersand2aremixedresearchfundingandperformingorganisations(seeAnnex1).Hence,theissuesaddressedinthissurveyappearedtoberelevantforbothtypesoforganisation.Thetargetedorganisationsarebasedin30countries.Datafrom25countrieswerereceived,makingthegeographiccoverageofthesurveysatisfactory(Figure1).

I. Participating Organisations

Mixed

Research Funding Organisation

Research Performing Organisation

Countries of responding organisations

Mixed

Research Funding Organisation

Research Performing Organisation

Countries of responding organisations

Figure 1:Participatingorganisations:theirtypeandgeographicaldistribution

6 Cross-borderResearchCollaborationinEurope

II. Methodology

Thesurveymappedtheperceptionsofcross-bordercooperationby40organisationsinEuropein2009.Itwasconductedusinganonlinequestionnaire.Thefirststudyphasetargetingthe45EUROHORCsmemberorganisa-tionswascarriedoutbetweenmidAprilandmidMay2009.Thirty-twoorganisationsoutofthe45responded.ThesecondphasetargetedinmidAugust–midOctober2009the17ESFmemberorganisationswhichareresearchfundingorperformingorganisationsbutnotmembersofEUROHORCs,outofwhich8responded.Thus,fromthetotalof62organisationsinvitedtosharetheirviewsandexperienceoncross-borderresearchcooperationinEurope,40tookpartinthesurvey.

Theon-linequestionnaire(Annex2)containedsixsub-sections:1.Basicinformationontheorganisation(researchfunding

orperformingorganisation),itsoverallbudgetandtherelativebudgetspentoninternationalcooperation;

2. Cross-border collaborations with other organisations, in theformofofficialcooperationagreementsandjointlyconductedprogrammes;

3. Cross-border funding and the extent to which the organisationshavethelegalmeansforfundingcross-bordercollaborationsand/orforcommonpotsoffundingwithout juste retour;possibilitiesofresearchersleavingtherespectivecountrytotaketheirfundingwiththemwhenmovingtoanothercountry;availabilityofthefundsof the research organisation for researchers based abroad;

4.Proceduralissueslikejointcallsforproposals,jointpeerreviewanddecisionmakingproceduresbetweenorganisations;

5.Cross-bordercooperationbyresearchers,i.e.,theextenttowhichresearchprojectsfundedbyorconductedwithintherespectiveresearchorganisationencompasscross-borderactivitiesandleadtointernationalpublica-tions;

6.Futuretrendssuchasdemandformorecross-bordercollaborationsbytherespectivenationalresearchcommunity;possiblelegalobstaclesforcross-bordercollaborationandplansforfurthercooperationagree-mentsandinitiativestodeveloptheEuropeanResearchArea.

Thequantitativedataofthesurveyaresummarisedinfiguresandtables,whereastheanswerstoqualitativequestions are categorised, and occasionally quoted in ordertoillustratespecificcasesandtrends.

Twocasesofcross-bordercooperationbetweenresearchorganisationsandresearchersinEuropearedescribed,theEuropeanYoungInvestigatorAwardprogramme(EURYI,Chapter5)andtheEuropeanCollaborativeResearchProgrammescheme(EUROCORES,Chapter6),bothfunded by subsets of the targeted organisations and managedbyESF.


III. Summary of Main Findings

• DedicatedbudgetsforEuropeancollaboration: ThebudgetsandnumbersofstaffofthememberorganisationsofEUROHORCsandESFvarygreatly.The differences between organisations in Northern, WesternandSouthernEurope,ascomparedtothoseinEasternEurope,areconsiderable.ThehighestrelativebudgetonEuropeancollaborationappearstobespentbyfiveorganisationswithrelativelysmalltotalbudgets(inPoland,Greece,theNetherlands,LuxembourgandSweden). It has to be noted that the flexibility to fund collaborativeresearchactivitiesofresearchperformingorganisationsrunninginstitutesmaybelimitedascomparedtothatofresearchfundingagencies.

• Cross-bordercollaborations: The organisations, notablyinFrance,Germany,Italy,theNordiccountriesandtheUK,haveasignificantnumberofcooperationagreementsandjointprogrammeswithpartnersinEurope,andalsobeyondEurope,especiallywithAsianorganisationsandtheBRICcountries(Brazil,Russia,India,China).MultilateralcollaborationsseemtoworkespeciallywellintheframeworkofthemultinationalorganisationssuchasD-A-CH(Germany,AustriaandSwitzerland),NordForsk(Denmark,Finland,Iceland,NorwayandSweden)andtheESF(80memberorgani-sationsin30countries).TheimplementationoftheEUROHORCs’‘MoneyFollowsResearcher’agree-ment,whichallowsresearcherstotransfertheirfundstoanotherEuropeancountryiftheymove,stillremainsa challenge.

• Cross-borderfunding:OrganisationsacrossEuropeseemtoberatherflexibleinlettingfundsflowacrossborderswhenthesearelinkedtojointprogrammes.Thereisevenreadinesstoinvestincommonpotsforfunding without juste retour. The trust between organi-sationsseemstobehighestwhentheprogrammesarecoordinatedbyareliable‘handlingagent’suchasD-A-CH,NordForskandESF.SomeresearchperformingorganisationshavegainedconsiderableexperienceinrunningoffshoreunitselsewhereinEuropeandbeyond,therebyinvolvingresearchersfromtherespectivehostcountries.Hesitancetoallowcross-borderfundingforindividualresearchprojectsoutsideofbi-ormultilateralschemesoftheresearchorganisationspersists.

• Proceduralissues:Theorganisationshavedevel-opedsubstantialexperienceinthejointhandlingofprogrammesatthelevelsofcallsforproposals,peerreviewanddecisionmaking.Prevalenceofbilateralcollaborationsstillexists,butmultilateralendeavoursareincreasing.Theso-called‘LeadAgency’proce-durebetweenEUROHORCsorganisationsisgainingimportance.Itstipulatesthatcross-borderresearchprojectsbetweenseveralresearchorganisationswillbepeerreviewedandadministeredbyoneorganisa-tion(LeadAgency),whereastheprojectswillbefundedseparately.

–The EURYI Case:TheEuropeanYoungInvestigator(EURYI)Awardprogramme,fundedbyanumberofEUROHORCsorganisationsandmanagedbyESF,wasanearlyexampleofaschemethatdeployedjointcallsofproposals,peerreview,decisionmakingandmanagement,aswellasacommonpotoffunding.

– The EUROCORES Case:TheEuropeanCollaborativeResearch (EUROCORES) Programme scheme,managedbyESFonbehalfof itsmembers,hassince 2003 attracted 60 organisations to fund close to30programmesinvolvingover1,300scientists.TheintensityofparticipationintheEUROCORESschemenormalisedperresearcherFTEsishighestin the Netherlands, Ireland, Switzerland, Norway and Belgium.

• Cross-bordercooperationbetween individualresearchers:Theknowledgeoftheorganisationsaboutongoinginternationalcollaborationsbetweenindividualresearchersoutsidejointprogrammesandabouttheresultingpublicationsislimited.Theyappearnottomaintaindatabasesoninternationallyco-authoredpubli-cationsissuedbyresearchersfundedbythem,thoughsystematicrecordingandminingofsuchdatawouldprovideinstrumentalinformationfordecisionmakingandplanning.Therefore,theinformationprovidedinthissurveymustbeappreciatedwithreservations.Nevertheless,itappearsthatthefocusofnationalresearchersisstilloncollaborationswithinEurope.Thepreferredcollaborationcountriesforinternationaljointpublicationsarelargelythesameasthefavouredpartnercountriesofcooperationagreementsbetweentheorganisations(France,GermanyandtheUK).

• Demandsfromtheresearchcommunities: The researchersarerequestingtheirrespectivenationalresearchorganisationstomakemorefundsavailablefor cross-border collaboration, to foster international mobilityandcollaborationsindoctoraltrainingandpost-doctoralqualification,andtoexpandopportunitiestouse international large-scale infrastructure to enable long-termcross-bordercollaboration.

• Futuretrends:The funding organisations are faced with strongdemandsbytheirnationalresearchcommunitiestoexpandresourcesforEuropeanandinternationalcollaborations,whilehavingtocopewithlegalandbudgetarylimitationsaswellaswiththereservationsonspendingnationaltax-payers’moneyabroad.Thissurveyidentifiedstronginterestinmultilateralcoopera-tioninEuropeandtosomeextentbeyond,inflexiblyrespondingtotheneedsofthescientificcommunitiesforjointbottom-upprogrammesandaccessinfrastructure,inapproachestojointlydefinerelevantresearchtopics,andinjointprocedures.


IV. Main Findings

1. Budget share for European and other international activities

Thetotalbudgetsoftheparticipatingorganisationsvaryconsiderably(Figure2).Ofthetopfiveorganisations,fourareresearchperformingorganisations(theFrenchNationalCenterforScientificResearch–CNRS,theFrenchAtomicEnergyCommission–CEA,theSpanishNationalResearchCouncil–CSICandtheItalianNationalResearchCouncil–CNR)andoneisaresearchfundingorganisation,theGermanResearchFoundation–DFG(foracronymsoftheorganisations,seeAnnex1).ThefiveorganisationswiththesmallestbudgetsmainlyrepresentCentraland(South-)EasternEuropeancountries(CyprusResearchPromotionFoundation–RPF,HungarianScientificResearchFund–

OTKA,FoundationforPolishScience–FNPandEstonianScienceFoundation–ETF),withtheexceptionoftheSwedishResearchCouncilforEnvironment,AgriculturalSciencesandSpatialPlanning(FORMAS).

Thevariationsinresearchbudgetsclearlymirrorthevolumeoftherespectivecountries’GrossDomesticProduct(GDP)(Figure3).AcomparisonbetweenbudgetandGDPindeedshowsastrongcorrelation.However,itneedstobetakenintoaccountthatinsomecountriesseveralorganisationsareresponsibleforresearchfundingand/orperforming.ThisisespeciallythecaseintheUKwitheightresearchcouncils.Notably,theUKranksthirdwhenitcomestothenominalGDP,whereastheMedicalResearchCouncil(MRC),withthelargestindividualbudgetoftheUKresearchcouncils,onlyranksninth.

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

Estonia

Cyprus

Luxembourg

Slovenia

Slovakia

Hungary

Romania

Ireland

Finland

Denm

ark

Greece

Austria

Norway

Sweden

Switzerland

Belgium

Poland

Turkey

SpainIta

ly

United

Kingdom

Czech

Republic

The

Netherlands

France

Germany

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

3200

2133

2000

1500

900

880

750

700

679

652

600

503

442

361

351

287

276

200

190

183

174

159

155

134

110

100

80 60 43 42 35 33 29 28 27 22 20 17 10 8

CNRS, FR

CEA, FR

DFG, D

E

MPG, D

E

CSIC, E

S

CNR, IT

EPSRC, UK

RCN, NO

MRC, U

K

INSERM

, FR

TNO, N

L

TÜBITA

K, TR

SNSF, CH

VR, SE

ENEA, IT

AKA, FI

INFN

, IT

VINNOVA

, SE

FWO, B

E

FWF,

AT

SFI, IE

ARRS, SI

DCIR, D

K

FRS F

NRS, BE

AHRC, UK

DCSR, DK

Enter

prise,

IE

GAČR, C

Z

CNCSIS, R

O

DNRF, DK

RJ, SE

NHRF, GR

APVV, SK

FNR, L

U

IRCSET,

IE

RPF, CY

OTKA, H

U

FNP,

PL

ETF, E

E

FORM

AS, SE

Figure 3:GrossDomesticProduct,nominal,2008(M€),Source:EUROSTAT

Figure 2: Totalannualbudgetofparticipatingorganisations,2008(M€)


WhichimportancedoresearchorganisationsinEuropeattribute to their cross-border research collaborations in financialterms?TheirrelativebudgetsspentonEuropeanactivitiesandoninternationalactivitiesbeyondEuroperespectivelyareshowninFigure4.Moreover,itappearstobedifficultforseveralorganisationstoidentifywhichshareoftheirbudgetisallocatedtointernationalcoopera-tion.Only28organisationshaveavailabledatawhichtheywishedtoprovide.Interestingly,fiveorganisationswithlowoverallbudgetshaverelativelyhighbudgetsharesforEuropeancollaborativeactivities(theFoundationforPolishScience–FNP,theGreekNationalHellenicResearchFoundation–NHRF,theNetherlandsOrganisationforAppliedScientificResearch–TNO,theNationalResearchFundofLuxembourg–FNRandtheSwedishResearchCouncilforEnvironment,AgriculturalSciencesandSpatialPlanning–FORMAS).

2. Cross-border collaborations between organisations

Formal cooperation agreements with organisations in other European countries

Formalagreementsoncross-borderresearchcooperationmaybeseenasatoolusedbyresearchorganisationstodemonstratetheirinterestincollaboratingwithpartnerorganisationsbasedinothercountries.However,thisshouldnotevokethereverseconclusionthatorganisationswhichhavenotsignedsuchagreementsdonotcooperateinternationally.FormalcooperationagreementsinEuropeseemtobefrequent.Thirty-fouroutofthe40organisations(85%)havesignedsuchagreements,whereassix1 organi-sationshavenot.Fourteenorganisationsareengagedin10ormoreagreementsand19maintainlessthanten(Figure 5).Oneorganisationdidnotindicatetheprecisenumberofcooperationagreements.Figure5illustratesthattheItalianNationalInstituteforNuclearPhysics(INF)isintheleadwith45agreements,followedbytheFrench

1.i.e.,theDanishCouncilforStrategicResearch,DanishCouncilforIndependentResearch,EnterpriseIreland,SlovakResearchandDevelopmentAgency,EngineeringandPhysicalSciencesResearchCouncil,UK,MedicalResearchCouncil,UK.

Figure 4:BudgetshareforEuropeanandinternationalactivities(beyondEurope)

10%

0%

20%

30%

40%

50%

OTKA, H

U

CSIC, E

S

INSERM

, FR

AHRC, UK

SNSF, CH

SFI, IE

ARRS, SI

FWO, B

E

DCSR, DK

VINNOVA

, SE

RCN, NO

CEA, FR

ENEA, IT

APVV, SK

IRCSET,

IE

ETF, E

E

CNR, IT

TÜBITA

K, TR

RPF, CY

FWF,

AT

CNRS, FR

DNRF, DK

RJ, SE

INFN

, IT

VR, SE

FORM

AS, SE

FNR, L

U

TNO, N

L

NHRF, GR

FNP,

PL

Budget for European activities

Budget for international activities beyond Europe


NationalCenterforScientificResearch(CNRS)with37andtheSlovenianResearchAgency(ARRS)with29.

Thegeographicspreadandthetypesoforganisationswhichhavebeenespeciallyactiveinsigningcooperationagreementsdonotrevealanyobvioustrends,asbothresearchfundingandperformingorganisationsfromallpartsofEuropeareinvolved.

Next we analysed in which countries the organisa-tionsarebasedthatarethemostfrequentlymentionedpartnersofcollaborativeagreements(Table1).Germany(notablytheGermanResearchFoundation)andFrance(specificallytheNationalCenterforScientificResearch)rankatthetopofthelist.RemarkableistherelativelystrongpositionofsmallercountriessuchasFinland(sixagreements),AustriaandBelgium(fiveagreementseach).Lookingatthemostpreferredpartnerorganisationsofcooperationagreements,abalancewasfoundbetweenresearchfunding(GermanResearchFoundation,FrenchNationalResearchAgency,FoundationforPolishScience)andresearchperformingorganisations(FrenchNationalCenterforScientificResearch,ItalianNationalResearchCouncil,GermanMaxPlanckSociety,CzechAcademyof Sciences).

‘Money Follows Researcher’ agreement

TheEUROHORCs’‘MoneyFollowsResearcher’(MFR)agreementisaformalcooperationagreementbetweenEUROHORCsmemberorganisationswhichhasbecomeespeciallyvisibleoverthepasttwoyears.It“shallauthoriseresearchersmovingtothecountryofanotherorganisation

participatinginthisscheme2tousetheremainderofacurrent research grant for the continuation of their research abroad”. InitsCommunicationon‘Bettercareersandmoremobility:aEuropeanPartnershipforResearchers’ofMay2008theEuropeanCommissionreferstotheMFRagree-mentasamodelforotherinitiativestoenablecross-bordermobilityofresearcherswithintheEuropeanResearchArea3.Obviously,thissectionofthequestionnairewastargetedonlytoEUROHORCsmembers.

InJune2008,theMFRagreementhadbeensignedby20ofthe32EUROHORCsorganisationsrespondingtothesurvey,whereas12hadnotsignedit.Ofthe20signatoryorganisations,eighthadnotyetimplementedtheagree-

2.i.e.theMoneyFollowsResearcherscheme,cf.EUROHORCsLetterofIntent:TransferofGrants,Article2,http://www.eurohorcs.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/EUROHORCs_MFR_Letter_of_Intent_Revised_081105.pdf.3.CommunicationfromtheEuropeanCommissiontotheCouncilandtheEuropeanParliament:Bettercareersandmoremobility:aEuropeanPartnershipforResearchers,Brussels23.05.2008,COM(2008)317final,p.6.

Figure 5:ResearchorganisationshavingtenormorecooperationagreementswithothercountriesinEurope

0

10

20

30

40

50

RCN, NO

CNR, IT

INSERM

, FR

AKA, FI

VINNOVA

, SE

TÜBITA

K, TR

CSIC, E

S

FRS F

NRS, BE

ENEA, IT

DFG, D

E

ARRS, SI

CNRS, FR

INFN

, IT

37

29

2523

15 15 1512

10 10 10 10

45

Partner organisations

Research organisation No. of agreements

GermanResearchFoundation 10

NationalCenterforScientificResearch,France

9

MaxPlanckSociety,Germany 4

NationalResearchCouncil,Italy 4

AcademyofSciencesoftheCzechRepublic

3

FrenchNationalResearchAgency 3

FoundationforPolishScience 3

IV. Main Findings

Table 1:ToptenpartnercountriesandcooperatingorganisationsinEuropenamedbythreeormoreorganisations

Partner countries

Country No. of agreements

Germany 22

France 20

Italy 9

UnitedKingdom 9

Finland 8

Austria 6

Belgium 5

Spain 5

CzechRepublic 4

Poland 4


ment,orhadnotreceivedrequestsforimplementation.

Particularlyinterestingisthesetofstatementsregardingtheimplementationoftheagreement:16organisationschosetoreplytothequestion‘Ifyes,haveyouimple-menteditandhow?’.Twostatementsthrowlightonpotentialdifficultiesassociatedwiththeimplementationoftheagreement:• TheSlovenianResearchAgency(SRA)raisesanissue

whichmightberelevanttootherorganisationsaswell:“Allbilateralcooperationisformallybasedonagree-mentsbetweengovernmentsoftwostatesandfurtherimplementedbytheSRA.”

• TheFrenchNationalCenterforScientificResearch(CNRS)faceschallengesinanotherrespect:“ReceivedseveralresearchersfromDFG.CNRS,beingaresearchperformingorganisation,doesnot fund individualresearchers,butprovidessupporttolaboratories.Individualresearcherscannottakemoneyorequipmentfromalabwhentheymove,evenifitistoanotherCNRSlaboratory.”Otherresearchperformingorganisationsmayfacethesameproblem,asalmostallwhichhaveimplementedtheMFRagreementareresearchfundingorganisations4.Theymaybeabletoreceiveincomingresearcherswiththeirgrants,butarenotinapositionto let their researchers transfer institutional funds to another institution.

Notsurprisingly,theMFRagreementseemstobeespe-ciallywellimplementedinthosecountrieswhereitwasdevelopedandtriedoutinapilotphase,theso-calledD-A-CHcountries(Germany,AustriaandSwitzerland)5.ButothercountrieshavealsomeanwhiledevelopedtheirownpoliciesforimplementingtheMFRagreement:• BoththeFlemishFundforScientificResearchandthe

NationalResearchFundofLuxembourgusetheagree-menttoenablemobilityofearlycareerresearchers(doctoralcandidatesand/orpostdocs).

• TheDanishCouncilforIndependentResearch,theSwedishResearchCouncilandtheBritishMedicalResearchCouncil(MRC)considerapplicationsfortrans-fersofgrantsonapragmaticcasebycasebasis.

Inaddition,theMRCpointsout:“Usuallythemechanismisthattheuniversitiesinvolvedinthetransferaregivenpermissiontotransfermoneyasappropriate.”

Allinall,apreliminaryconclusioncanbedrawnthattheimplementationoftheMFRagreementseemstoneedfurtherexerciseandexchangeofinformationandprac-ticebetweentheorganisations.Initscurrentformatitappearstobelesssuitableforresearchperformingthanforresearchfundingorganisations.Thecooperationbetween

4.WiththeexceptionoftheBritishMedicalResearchCouncilbeingamixedorganisation.5.TheAustrianScienceFund,theSwissNationalScienceFoundationandtheGermanResearchFoundationhaveestablishedapermanentcooperativeassociationnamedD-A-CH.

theD-A-CHcountriesmaybeseenasafirstindicationofthegrowingimportanceofregionalalliancesandthelevelof trust they are able to build.

Portability of grants outside the ‘Money Follows Researcher’ agreement

TheimplementationoftheMFRagreementisstillachal-lenge,butoutsideofthisagreementtheopportunitiesforresearcherstotransfergrantstoanothercountryareevenmorelimited.Intotal,21organisationsdonotallowtheirgrantees to transfer funds abroad, and six organisations providednoanswertothisquestion.Only13organisationsofferthisopportunitymainlyonacase-by-casebasis.ItisimportanttonotethatthehighlycompetitivegrantsoftheEuropeanResearchCouncilareportablefromoneinstitutiontoanotherandfromoneEUMemberStateorAssociatedCountrytoanother.

Formal cooperation agreements with organisations beyond Europe

EUROHORCsandESFhighlightintheirjoint‘VisiononaGloballyCompetitiveEuropeanResearchAreaandtheirRoadMapforActions’6theambitiontoconnect“Europeanresearchtotheworld”.ItwasthereforeimportanttoanalysetheextenttowhichcollaborationsbetweenEuropeanorganisationsandorganisationsbeyondEuropehavebeensetup,atleastintheframeworkofformalcooperationagreements.

Intotal,33organisationsoftheresponding40havesignedagreementswithnon-Europeanorganisations,whereas six 7organisationshavenot(Table2).LargelythesameorganisationswhichalsomaintaincooperationagreementswithpartnersinEuropehavesignedcoopera-tionagreementsbeyondEurope.However,theGermanResearchFoundation,whichisfourthinthenumberofEuropeanagreements(Figure5),isfirstinagreementswithnon-Europeanorganisations(Table2).

NotablystrongisthepositionoforganisationsfromSouthernEuropeancountries(Italy,SpainandTurkey)andfromrelativelysmallcountrieslikeFinland,SwedenandBelgium(Table2).

ThecountriesandorganisationswithwhichtheEuropeanorganisationslinkpointtotheconceptoftheupcoming‘AsianCentury’(Table3).AlthoughUSAisstillinthelead,Chinahasbecomethesecondmostpreferredpartnercountryincooperationagreementsbetweenresearchorganisations.ExceptforUSAandRussia,whichwas

6.Cf.http://www.eurohorcs.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/EUROHORCs_ESF_ERA_RoadMap.pdf.7.IncludingtheDanishCouncilforStrategicResearch(notmemberofEUROHORCs),DanishCouncilforIndependentResearch,EnterpriseIreland,NationalResearchFundofLuxembourg,SlovakResearchandDevelopmentAgency,NetherlandsOrganisationforAppliedScientificResearch.


Table 3: ToptenpartnercountriesandcooperatingorganisationsbeyondEuropenamedbythreeormoreEuropeanorganisations.

Country No. of agreements

Country Organisation No. of agreements

USA 28 USA NationalScienceFoundation 11

China 25 China NationalNaturalScienceFoundationofChina 10

Japan 12 China ChineseAcademyofSciences 9

India 10 Japan JapanSocietyforthePromotionofScience 6

SouthKorea 10 Russia RussianFoundationforBasicResearch 4

Russia 9 Canada NationalResearchCouncilCanada 3

Taiwan 6 SouthKorea KoreaResearchFoundation 3

Brazil 5 SouthKorea KoreaScienceandEngineeringFoundation 3

Argentina 5 USA NationalInstitutesofHealth 3

Canada 4

0 5 10 15 20 25

23

28

10

17

4Other

Jointly funded research programme

Programme to support the career advancement of researchers

Exchange of personnel(research or administrative)

Jointly performed research programme

Country Organisation No. of agreements

Germany GermanResearchFoundation 60

France NationalCenterforScientificResearch 50

Italy NationalInstituteofNuclearPhysics 40

Finland AcademyofFinland 29

Spain SpanishNationalResearchCouncil 29

France NationalInstituteofHealthandMedicalResearch 19

Belgium FundforScientificResearch 18

Sweden SwedishGovernmentalAgencyforInnovationSystems 14

Italy NationalResearchCouncil 13

Belgium NationalFundforScientificResearch 12

Turkey ScientificandTechnologicalResearchCouncilofTurkey 10

Germany MaxPlanckSociety 10

Table 2: ResearchorganisationshavingtenormorecooperationagreementswithothercountriesbeyondEurope

IV. Main Findings

Figure 6:TypeofcooperationbetweenorganisationsinEurope


classifiedbysurveyparticipantsas“beyondEurope”,wefindAsianstatesinthetopranks:Japan,India,SouthKoreaandTaiwan.Fromthetopfivepartnerorganisa-tionsofcooperationagreements,theUSNationalScienceFoundationisdirectlyfollowedbytheNationalNaturalScienceFoundationofChinaandtheChineseAcademyofSciences(11comparedto10and9agreements).GiventhatBrazilranksamongthetoptenpartnercountries,therelevanceoftheBRICcountries(Brazil,Russia,IndiaandChina)aspartnersininternational(research)collaborationappearstobeincreasing.

Participation in joint programmes with other organisations in Europe

Notjustonpaperinagreementdocumentsbutalsoinconcreteterms,researchorganisationsinEuropearepreparedtocollaborateacrossborders.ThesurveyshowsthatthevastmajorityoforganisationscollaborateinjointprogrammesbeyondtheschemesofferedbytheEuropeanCommission.Oncemore,asmanyas34ofthe40organi-sationsindicatedinvolvementinjointprogrammeswithotherresearchorganisationsinEurope,whereasseven8 organisationsstatedthattheyhavenotbeenengaged,at least yet.

Inordertofindoutmoreaboutthetypeofcoopera-tioninjointprogrammestheorganisationswereaskedforspecifics.Figure5indicatesthenumberofrepliestoeachofthefivecategoriesofjointactivities.Itturnsoutthatthefocusisoncooperationwithinjointlyfunded(28organisations)andjointlyperformedresearchprogrammes(23 organisations).

Theexchangeofpersonnelbetweentheorganisations,however,seemstobeimportantaswell:17organisationscooperateinthisfield.Tenorganisationsstatethattheyareinvolvedinprogrammeswhicharegearedtosupportthecareeradvancementof(earlystage)researchers.

Theorganisationswereaskedtonamethemostrelevantpartnercountriesandorganisationswithwhomtheycoop-erateinjointprogrammes.AgainGermany,France,theNordiccountries(asagroup;Denmark,Finland,Iceland,NorwayandSweden),ItalyandtheUnitedKingdomarethemostfrequentlymentionedcountries(Table4).

Theorganisations,whichhaveaminimumofthreedifferentinternationalpartnersforcooperationinjointprogrammes,arelistedinTable5,wheretheNordiccoun-tries(Denmark,Finland,Iceland,NorwayandSweden)areaggregatedtooneentityinthecontextofthemultinational

8.i.e.theFundforScientificResearch(Belgium),NationalHellenicResearchFoundation(Greece),theHungarianScientificResearchFund,EnterpriseIreland,ScienceFoundationIreland,theSwedishResearchCouncilforEnvironment,AgriculturalSciencesandSpatialPlanningandtheNationalResearchFund(Luxembourg).

NordicorganisationNordForsk9whichappearstoeffi-cientlysupportjointprogrammesintheNordiccountries.ItisfollowedbytheFrenchNationalCenterforScientificResearchtogetherwiththeGermanResearchFoundation(fiveeach),andtheGermanMaxPlanckSocietytogetherwiththeFrenchNationalResearchAgency.

In total, 34 organisations answered the question whether theirengagementinjointprogrammesmainlyencompassesbilateralormultilateralcollaborations.Halfofthemfocusedonbilateralcollaborations,andtheotherhalffavouredmultilateralprogrammes.

Nineteenorganisationssharedtheirviewsongoodprac-ticeinmultilateralcollaborations.Thevarietyofprogrammeswhichwerenamedislarge.Onlytwoprogrammeswerementionedbyseveralorganisations:•SevenorganisationsviewedtheEuropeanScienceFoundation’sEUROCORES(EuropeanCollaborativeResearchProgrammes)schemeastheleadingexampleofgoodpractice(seeChapter6).

•FiveorganisationsfromtheNordiccountrieshighlightedcollaborationsintheframeworkofNordForskwithspecialemphasisonitsNordicCentresofExcellenceProgramme.Itaimsatbringingtogethertopquality

9.NordForskisaNordicResearchBoard.ItoperatesundertheNordicCouncilofMinistersforResearchandEducationandsupportsresearch and research training.

Table 4:Topfivepartnercountriesofcooperationinjointprogrammes

Country No. of joint programmes

Germany 14

France 13

Nordic countries 8

Italy 6

UnitedKingdom 6

Table 5:Preferredcollaborationpartnersinjointprogrammes(namedbythreeormoreorganisations)

Organisation No. of joint programmes

NordForsk,Nordiccountries 7

NationalCenterforScientificResearch,France

5

GermanResearchFoundation

5

MaxPlanckSociety,Germany

4

FrenchNationalResearchAgency,France

3


researchgroupsinordertoforminternationallyvisiblecentresornetworks.

In summary, theEUROHORCsandESFmemberorganisationsareconsiderablyengagedincoopera-tionagreementsandjointprogrammeswithpartnersinEurope(withaprevalenceofGermany,France,theNordiccountries,ItalyandtheUK)andbeyond(withagrowingemphasisonAsiaandtheBRICcountries).Multilateralcollaborationsseemtoworkespeciallywellintheframe-workofmultinationalorganisations liketheD-A-CHpartnership,NordForskandtheESF.

3. Cross-border funding

Thewillingnessofagivencountryororganisationtoallownationaltaxpayers’moneytocrossbordersisastrongindicatorforthestageofdevelopmentoftheERA,char-acterisedbycross-bordermobilityofpeople,ideasandfunds.Itwasthereforeimportanttoasktheorganisationsiftheyareabletoinvestinresearchoutsidetheirnationalboundaries,forinstancebycontributingtocommonpotsof funds without juste retour,allowingfortheportabilityofgrantsoropeningtheirschemestoresearchersbasedabroad.

Legal mandate to fund research outside the country

Uptonow,amajorityof22(55%)outofthe40partici-patingorganisationshavetherighttofundresearchoutsidethecountry,whereas18(45%)arenotentitledto do so. Of the organisations which are legally in the positiontoenablecross-borderfunding,15statedthattheircross-bordercollaborationsinjointprogrammesalsoincludecross-borderfunding.Forsevenorganisationscross-borderfundingisnotpossibleintheircross-borderprogrammes.

Common pots for funding

Thereadinessofresearchorganisationstoinvestinacommonpotforfundingisclearlyaratherradicalsteptowardsa‘EuropeanGrantUnion’.Althoughstillaslightmajorityof17organisationscooperateinjointprogrammeswithoutcommonpotfunding,asmanyas16organisationshavebeeninvolvedinjointschemeswhichoperatewithacommonpotforfundingwithoutjuste retour.

Next,theorganisationswereaskedtoprovideexam-plesofgoodpracticeforcommonpotfunding.Themostfrequentlymentionedprogrammes(fourtimeseach)are:• TheNordicCentresofExcellenceProgrammewhichis

offeredbythemultinationalorganisationNordForsk.• TheEuropeanYoung Investigator (EURYI)AwardProgrammefundedbyseveralEUROHORCsorgani-sationsandmanagedbytheESFoveraperiodoffive

years.TheprogrammewasterminatedwhentheconceptwastakenupbytheEuropeanResearchCouncilinitsStartingGrantscheme.TheEURYIAwardProgrammeisdescribedasacaseinChapter5.

Openness of national programmes to researchers based abroad

Outofthe40organisationsparticipatinginthissurvey,amajorityof23hasopenedtheirnationalprogrammestoresearchersbasedabroad,betheynationalsmovingabroad or non-national awardees using those funds either in the funding country or abroad. Thirteen organisations limittheirfundingtonationalapplicantsandfourorgani-sationsprovidednoanswer.Nomajordifferencescanbeobservedbetweentheresearchfundingandtheperformingorganisations.

The answers by research organisations on why they openedtheirschemestoresearchersoutsidethecountryfall into three categories:•Tosupportthequalificationofyoungresearchers

(mentionedbytheBelgianFlemishFundforScientificResearch, the Italian National Agency for NewTechnologies,EnergyandtheEnvironment,theSpanishNationalResearchCouncilandtheSwedishResearchCouncil).

•To(re-)attractresearcherstotherespectivecountry(mentionedbytheBelgianNationalFundforScientificResearchoftheFrenchSpeakingCommunity,theFoundationforPolishScience,theDanishNationalResearchFoundationandtheSwissNationalScienceFoundation).TheAcademyofFinlandoffersaVisitingResearchersprogrammewhichallowsitsfellowstospendatleasthalfofthefundingperiodabroad.

•Toestablishinstitutionalpartnerships,astheGermanMaxPlanckSocietyoutlineswithrespecttoitsMaxPlanckPartnerGroups:“[F]orthepurposeofstrength-eningthetiesbetweenMaxPlanckInstitutesandforeignresearchinstitutesandofintensifyingcooperationbetweenindividualscientiststhroughjointlyconductedprojects.Partnergroupsareheadedbyvisitingscientistswithprovenresearchrecordsandprofileswho,aftercompletingtheirresearchresidencyataMaxPlanckInstitute,returntotheirhomebasetoleadanappro-priatelyequippedresearchgroup.”

TheDanishCouncilforIndependentResearch(DCIR)andtheBritishMedicalResearchCouncil(MRC)areespe-ciallyflexibleinhandlingapplicationsfromoutsidethecountry.•TheDCIRpointsoutthat“AccordingtoDanishlaw,fundingschemesareopen to researchersbasedabroad(andregardlessoftheirnationality),providedthattheirresearchisjudgedtobeofbenefittoDanishresearch.”

•TheMRC states: “Overseas researchers can be

IV. Main Findings


co-applicantsonMRCgrants.Theycanrequestcostsfromthegrant,whichweprovidetotheUKuniversitieswhothenusetheirownmethodstotransmitthefundstotheco-applicant.OverseasfundingisapprovedonacasebycasebasisbyanMRCProgrammeManager.”

•Other research organisations have opened theirprogrammestotheparticipationofforeignresearchers,butrequirethattheresearchiscarriedoutintherespec-tivecountries.ThisisthecaseforScienceFoundationIreland, the Irish ResearchCouncil for Science,EngineeringandTechnology,theHungarianScientificResearchFundandtheScientificandTechnologicalResearchCouncil of Turkey. TheCzechScienceFoundationsandtheResearchCouncilofNorwayalsoimposelimitations,butdidnotfurtherspecifythem.

Someoftheresearchperformingorganisationsoperateunitsabroadandbythismeansalsofundresearchersinthecountrieswheretheseunitsarebased(e.g.,theFrenchNationalCenterforScientificResearch,theFrenchNationalInstituteofHealthandMedicalResearch,theGermanMaxPlanckSocietyandtheBritishMedicalResearchCouncil.Somefoundationsorprivatetrusts,suchastheWellcomeTrust,whicharenotinthescopeofthissurvey,seemespeciallytobeveryexperiencedinthisregard.TheInstitutPasteurforinstanceisrequiredbyitsstatutestoaccomplishitsmissionnotonlyinFrance,butalsoabroad.Ithasmeanwhileestablishedaninternationalnetworkonfivecontinents.

Insummary,anumberoforganisationsacrossEuropeseemtoberatheropeninlettingfundsflowacrossborderswhenthesearelinkedtojointprogrammes.Eventhereadi-nesstoinvestincommonpotsforfundinginwhichnojuste retour is guaranteed is considerable. The trust between organisationsseemstobehighestinthecaseofjointlyrunfundedprogrammesandwhentheyaremanagedbyareliable‘handlingagent’suchasthemultinationalESForNordForsk.Someresearchperformingorganisationshavegainedconsiderableexperienceinrunningoffshoreunitsorinstitutes.Still,therepersistsahesitancetoallowfundstocrossbordersinthecaseofindividualresearchprojects,outsideofspecificbi-ormultilateralschemeswhicharegearedtocross-borderresearchcooperation.

4. Procedural issues

FinancialcooperationisastrongindicatorofmutualtrustbetweenresearchorganisationsinEurope.Ahighlevelofconfidenceisrequired,whenessentialproceduralissuesofresearchmanagementareconcerned,suchascallsforproposals,peerreviewanddecisionmakingproce-dures.Hence,itisimportanttoanalysetowhichextenttheparticipatingorganisationsarepreparedtoengageinjointproceduresandwhatexperiencetheyhavegained.

Joint calls for proposals

Avastmajority,33ofthe40organisations(83%)issuejointcallsforproposals,whereassevenorganisations(12%)havenotdoneso.Itisinterestingtoseethatnotonlyresearchfundingorganisationsareinvolvedinjointcallsforproposals,butalsosomeresearchperformersliketheFrenchAtomicEnergyCommission,theFrenchNationalInstituteofHealthandMedicalResearch,theGermanMaxPlanckSociety,theItalianNationalAgencyforNewTechnologies,EnergyandtheEnvironment,theSpanishNationalResearchCouncilortheBritishMedicalResearchCouncil,whichisamixedfundingandperformingorganisation.

Analysingthe33participatingorganisations’repliesregardingbestpracticeexamples10forjointcallsforproposalswefind:•Themajority,21organisations,namebilateralinitiatives

thatarenotlimitedtotheEuropeanResearchArea,butinvolveorganisationsfromallovertheworld.Thesecallsaremainlycarriedoutwithpartnerorganisationsonthebasisofexistingcooperationagreements.Thus,theorganisationsobviouslydonotseemajordifferencesbetweenpartnerswithinoroutsideEurope.Theanswersalsounderlinethatthecooperationagreementsareactu-allyimplementedorhaveevenbeensignedex post in ordertolegitimisealreadyexistingcollaborations.

•Regardingjointcallsforproposals,themostfrequentlymentionedmultilateralscheme(sevenreplies)isoncemoretheESF’sEUROCORESprogramme,followedbytheNordicCentresofExcellenceProgramme(threereplies)andjointcallsintheD-A-CHframework(onereply).Thisfindingunderlinesagaintherelevanceofmultinationalorganisationsoralliancesasfacilitatorsofcross-borderresearchcooperationinEurope.

Joint peer review

Theresultsonjointpeerreviewproceduresmirrorthoseonjointcallsforproposals:30organisations(75%)haveexperienceinthisrespect,10(25%)havenot.Sixresearchperformingormixedorganisationsstatedtheyhavebeen

10.Severalnominationswereallowed.


involvedinjointpeerreviews11. In total 28 organisations reportedexamplesofgoodpractice12: • Themajorityoforganisations(17)havegainedpositiveexperienceinbilateralcollaborations.Someorgani-sationscanbuildonlong-standingpracticesliketheGermanResearchFoundationwhichhasusedjointpeerreviewinthecontextof57InternationalResearchTrainingGroups.Thisprogrammeisgearedtosupportbilateralstructuredprogrammesfordoctoraleduca-tion.

•SomeorganisationschosetheChineseNationalNaturalScienceFoundationandtheUSNationalScienceFoundationaspreferrednon-Europeanpartnersforcooperationagreements(eachmentionedbyfourorgan-isations).

• TheEUROCORESschemewasthemostfrequentlynamedmultilateralprogramme(fourreplies),followedbytheD-A-CHcooperation(tworeplies)andtheNordicCentresofExcellenceProgramme(onereply).

Joint decision making

Thirtyorganisationsansweredquestionsonjointdecisionmaking,whereas10providednoreply.

Neglectingthe‘noanswer’category,threetypesofanswers can be distinguished:• Onlyfourorganisationspointedoutthattheydonotimplementjointdecisionmakinginjointlyoperatedprogrammes.Incontrast,27organisationsallowforsomekindofjointdecisions.

•Ofthelatter,15organisationsstatedhavingjointdecisionmakingpracticesinplace.Especiallythethreepartici-patingBritishorganisationshavegainedconsiderableexperienceinthisfieldaswellassomeoftheresearchperformingorganisations like the ItalianNationalResearchCouncilandtheSpanishNationalResearchCouncil.

Thefollowingquotationsillustratehowjointdecisionmakingiscarriedout:• TheBritishArtsandHumanitiesResearchCouncil

states:“Bothorganisationsmeettoagreethenumberofprojectstobefundedaccordingtofundsavailable.”

•TheBritishEngineeringandPhysicalSciencesResearchCouncilreports:“EPSRCprovidesrefereeinformation,buttheprocessisoperatedbyoverseasagency.EPSRCabidesbyoverseaspeerreviewdecision.”

• TheBritishMedicalResearchCouncilemphasises:“Yes,thereisajointdecisionmakingprocedurethroughhavingajointpaneltoconductthereviews.”

• TheResearchPromotionFoundationofCypruspoints

11.IncludingtheFrenchNationalInstituteofHealthandMedicalResearch,theItalianNationalAgencyforNewTechnologies,EnergyandtheEnvironment,theSpanishNationalResearchCouncilandtheBritishMedicalResearchCouncil.12.Severalanswerswereallowed.

out:“Afterthecompletionoftheevaluation,ajointcommitteemeetstodecidewhichproposalsshouldbe funded.”

• TheAustrianScienceFundandtheSwissNationalScienceFoundationmentionthe‘LeadAgency’proce-dureinthisregard.IthadfirstbeenlaunchedintheframeworkoftheD-A-CHcooperationandhasnowbeengraduallyextended.Originally,theLeadAgencyprocedure“isanagreementbetweenresearchfundingorganisationstodelegatethepeerreviewprocessofprojectsinvolvingresearchgroupsfromseveralcoun-tries to one organisation.”13

The remaining 12 organisations use combinedapproacheswhichbuildonjointpeerreviewandthenlettherespectivenationalorganisationstaketheirdecisionsindividually,beforecomingupwithajointfinaldecision.• Atypicalexampleinthisrespectisthestatementby

theCzechScienceFoundation(GAČR):“Decisiononawardinggrantsisbasedonresultofevaluationprocessfrompartnerfundingorganisation.Grantcanbeawardedonlyafterfinalapprovalfrombothresearchfundingorganisations(GAČRandpartnerfundingorganisation).”

Obviously, researchorganisations inEuropehavebeenabletodevelopconsiderableexperienceinthejointhandlingofprogrammesatallthreelevels:callsforproposals,peerreviewanddecisionmaking.Acertainprevalenceofbilateralcollaborationsstillexists,butmulti-lateralendeavoursarerelevant,too.Itcanbeexpectedthatthe‘LeadAgency’procedurewillbecomemoreandmoreimportantespeciallyforcollaborationsbetweenalimitednumberoforganisations.

13.Cf.The‘EUROHORCs’viewonJointProgramming’, http://www.eurohorcs.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/EUROHORCS_Statement_Joint_Programming_20081411.pdf.

IV. Main Findings


5. The EUROHORCs-ESF European Young Investigator Award programme

The concept

In2003theEUROHORCsandtheESFlaunchedtheEuropeanYoungInvestigator(EURYI)Awardprogramme.ThesignatoriesoftheMemorandumofUnderstanding,annuallyreneweduntil2006,statedthattheywished“tocontributetothebuildingoftheEuropeanResearchArea”.Theaimoftheprogrammewas“toencourageandenableoutstandingyoungresearchersfromallovertheworldtoworkinaEuropeanenvironmentforthebenefitofthedevelopmentofEuropeanscienceandthebuildingupofthenextgenerationofleadingEuropeanresearchers.”

TheEURYIAwards14exemplifyaprogrammewherejointcallsforproposals,peerreview,decisionmakingandprogrammemanagement,aswellasacommonpotforfunding,wererealisedataEuropeanlevel15.

TheEURYIAwardprogrammewasoperatedinfourannualcallsforproposals.ThefirstcallwaspublishedinSeptember2003andthelastin2006.Therespectiveawardsweregrantedin2004and2007.Awardholderscouldcarryoutaresearchprojectoftheirownchoiceduringaperiodoffiveyearsatahostinstitutioninanycountryparticipatingintherespectivecall.Theywereexpectedtodevotetheirfullworkingtimetoresearchandactivitiesrelatedtotheirproposal.

Thetotalnumberofsubmittedproposalswas2,230.ThemaximumtotalvalueofanAwardwas1.25M€overthefiveyears.Thebudgetoftheprogrammeamountedtoapprox.100M€,andwasusedtofund95Awards.Intotal,25organisationsfrom20countriesparticipatedinthefourcalls(seeAnnex3).

ThethreefirstannualroundsoftheEURYIAwardprogrammewereevaluatedbytheindependentNorwegiangroupNIFUSTEOin2005and200722 using a questionnaire addressedtoboththesuccessfulandunsuccessfulappli-cantsofthe2003-2005callsforproposals.The2007reportstates:“EURYIseemstofunctionasadoor-opener,andtheawardeesareingeneralverycontentwiththecareereffectsoftheaward.Wealsofindthattheawardsenableresearchthatwouldotherwisenothavebeenaccomplished,andmakeinthesetermsadifferencenotonlyfortheawar-dees, but also for research.” ThereportunderlinesthattheEURYIschemehasimpliedcooperation,learningandinspirationbetweenthenationalresearchfundingagenciesinvolved.However,theevaluatorsperceivedlimitationsastotheactualharmonisationofselectionproceduresbetweentheparticipatingorganisations.Theyalsosaw

14.FormoredetailsontheEURYIAwardprogrammecf. http://www.esf.org/activities/euryi.html.15.Cf.theEUROHORCs’andESF’sMemorandumofUnderstanding(MoU)forthefundingandmanagementoftheFourthCallwithintheprogrammeofEuropeanYoungInvestigator(EURYI)Awards,p.1.

roomforimprovement,especiallywithrespecttotheselec-tionprocess“tofurtheremphasisetheweightonforwardlookingcriteriaandassuringfocusonthepotentialimpactof the awards”.

Joint procedures and funding

Table7(seepage18)summarisesthevariousaspectsofcross-bordercooperationinimplementingtheEURYIAwardprogramme.

Participation and outcome by country

Table8showsthedistributionofapplicationsandawardsacrossthecountriesparticipatingintheEURYIProgrammeduringallfourcallsforproposals.Thesymbol“–”indicatesthatacountrydidnotparticipateintherespectivecallandcorrespondinglydidnotreceiveawards.

Inabsoluteterms,themostawardswerereceivedbyFrance(18),followedbytheNetherlands(15),Germany(14),Switzerland(11)andSpain(8).RemarkableistheextraordinarysuccessofrathersmallcountriessuchastheNetherlandsandSwitzerland,demonstratingthatthesecountriesstandoutinattractinghigh-profileresearchers.

In2007theEuropeanResearchCouncillaunchedthefirstcallforproposalsofitsStartingGrantscheme.AsthisprogrammesharesmostofthecharacteristicsoftheEURYIAwardprogrammewhileprovidingroughlytentimesmoregrants,theEUROHORCsdecidedtopostponeindefinitelythefundingofanyfurtherEURYIAwards.Theprogrammewillcometoanendin2013whenthefundsofthe2007Awardsexpire.

6. The European Collaborative Research Programmes scheme

TheESFmanagesonbehalfofitsmemberorganisationsaschemeofEuropeanCollaborativeResearchProgrammes,designatedEUROCORES.Theprogrammesaddressresearchquestionswhichrequirecooperationcrossingnationalbordersanddisciplinaryboundaries.TheaimoftheEUROCORESschemeistopromotecooperationbetweennationalfundingandperformingorganisationsbyprovidingamechanismforcollaborativefundingonthemesselectedthroughopencallsforproposals.Theschemedeployscommonpeerreview,whichisorganisedbyESFandisthebasisforthenationalfundingdecisions.Fundingbytheparticipatingorganisationsremainswithintheirnationalbordersandisdedicatedtoresearchteamsoftherespectivecountry.Eachresearchprogramme,runningforthreetofouryears,iscomposedofabout30individualprojects,eachofwhichincludebetweenfourandsevenprincipalinvestigatorswhoarebasedindifferentcountries.


IV. Main Findings

Commonpotforfunding •Theparticipatingorganisationsjointlyprovidedtheprogrammebudgetonacallbycallbasis.Theminimumcontributionwas200k€forfiveyears.Itentitledanorganisationtosubmittwoproposalstotheinternationalselectionstage.Anyadditional200k€budgetshareaccountedforoneadditionalproposaltobeputforward,subjecttopriorapprovalatnationallevel.

•TheEURYIprogrammeoperatedwithacommonpotforfundingwithoutjuste retour. •Thecommonpotwas‘virtual’inthesensethatESFactedasafinancial‘clearinghouse’betweenorganisationsreceivingmorefundingthantheyhadoriginallycontributedtothecommonbudgetandthoseorganisationsreceivinglessfundsascomparedtotheirbudgetshare.

Jointcallsforproposals •Organisationsparticipatingintherespectivecallsagreedonajointcallforproposals.ThecallswereissuedsimultaneouslybytheEUROHORCsandESFtogetherwiththerespectiveparticipatingorganisations.

•Thedeadlineforthesubmissionofproposalswasbindingforallparticipatingorganisations. •Theproposalshadtobesubmittedtothenationalparticipatingorganisation.

Jointpeerreview •Theassessmentofapplicationswasundertakenintwostages,firstatnationallevelandsubsequentlyatEuropeanlevel.

•Thesamesetofcommonlyagreedselectioncriteriaapplied:–theresearchqualityandpotentialoftheapplicant –theoriginality,groundbreakingcharacterandfeasibilityoftheresearchproposal –thepotentialoftheapplicantandtheproposedresearchprogrammetoimprovethepositionofEuropeanresearchatworldlevel.

•Originally,theparticipatingorganisationsmanagedthefirststageusingtheirownnationalrulesandprocedures.Overtimetheyagreedonasetofjointreviewprinciplesforthenationalselection stage.

•TheEuropeanScienceFoundationmanagedtheEuropeanphaseofthereviewprocessinvolvinghighlyrespectedinternationalexpertstocarryoutpeerreviewinaccordancewiththerespectivenationalorganisation’srulesandprocedures.

Jointdecisionmaking •TheEURYIProgrammeCommitteewasresponsiblefordecisionmaking.ThememberswereheadsoftheparticipatingorganisationsandarepresentativefromESF.

•TheCommitteewasinchargeofupholdingthekeyprinciplesofthescheme,overseeingtheprocessofevaluationandselection,andformallyapprovingtheproposalsselectedforfundingattheinternationalassessmentstage.

Jointprogrammemanagement

•OperationalmatterswerehandledbytheEURYIManagementCommitteeincooperationwiththeESF.TheCommitteewasresponsibleforthedetaileddevelopmentofthescheme,suchastheschemeguidelines,callforproposals,applicationprocessandavailabilityoffunding.

•AllparticipatingorganisationsandtheESFwereentitledtoaseatontheManagementCommittee.

•ThegrantedEURYIAwardsareadministeredatnationallevelbytherespectiveparticipatingorganisation and the host institution of the awardee.

‘MoneyFollowsResearchers’principle

•Inthebeginningtheschemewasrestrictiveinallowingformovesbetweeninstitutionsandcountries.ThisrulewasloosenedovertimeandbasedontheprinciplesoftheEUROHORCs’‘MoneyFollowsResearcher’agreement.*

Features of cross-border research cooperation

Implementation in the EURYI Award programme

Call Countries Organisations

2003 14 17

2004 16 20

2005 16 18

2006 15 17

Table 7: MainfeaturesoftheEURYIAwardprogramme

*Cf.theEUROHORCs’andESF’s4thMemorandumofUnderstanding(MoU)forthefundingandmanagementoftheFourthCallwithintheprogrammeofEuropeanYoungInvestigator(EURYI)Awards,p.6:“Inexceptionalcircumstances,aEURYIawardmaybetransferredbetweenhostinstitutions,subjecttotheformalagreementofbothhostinstitutionsandbothPOsconcerned.TransfersmayonlytakeplacewhenbothPOshaveparticipatedintheCallinwhichtheawardwasmadeandwillnormallyfollowtheprinciplesestablishedbytheEUROHORCs‘MoneyFollowsResearcher’agreement.”


OnceaEUROCORESprogrammehasobtainedfunding,itisexpectedtoimplementnetworkingactivitiesthroughworkshops,conferences,schools,coursesandshort-termvisits.Networkinganddisseminationactivitiesaremeanttoencourageandfacilitatescientificcollaborationanddiffusionofknowledge.ESFisresponsibleforcoordina-tionofthenetworkingactivities,scientificsynthesisoftheresearchresultsandtheirdissemination.Since2009,themanagement,coordinationandnetworkingactivitiesarepaidbytheorganisationsfundingtheresearchitself,whereasin2003-2008theywerefundedbyanECSpecificSupportAction(ERASCT-2003-980409).

Procedures and funding

Onceayear,ESFsolicitsfromthescientificcommunitynewresearchthemesacrossallscientificdomainsthatrequireEuropeancollaboration.‘Themeproposals’elaboratedbyscientistsworkinginthosefieldsarepeerreviewedandrankedbytheStandingCommitteesofESFandqualitycontrolledbytheESFScienceAdvisoryBoard.ThethemesapprovedbytheESFGoverningCouncilarethensubmitted

totheESFmemberorganisationsforexpressionoftheirinteresttofundnationalteamsintendingtoparticipateintheprogrammes.Thefinancialviabilityofagivenprogrammerequiresthatcloseto30projects(teams)willbefundedby the national organisations.

ThereafterESFpublishesacallforproposalsforeachEUROCORESprogramme.Theresearchproposalsareassessedthroughatwo-stepinternationalpeerreviewprocess.Therank-orderedlistofproposalsispresentedforfinalfundingdecisionstothemanagementcommitteeestablishedforeachEUROCORESprogramme,whichconsistsofrepresentativesoftheparticipatingfundingorganisations.Theresearchgrantsaredirectlygiventothenationalteams.

Since2003,about60organisationsfrom30countriesandover1,300scientists,includingseveralorganisationsandscientistsalsobeyondEurope,havecooperatedintheEUROCORESscheme.Thecurrent23activeprogrammes(uptotheendof2009)arefundedwithapproximately110 M€fromthenationalsources.

Country Call 1 Call 2 Call 3 Call 4

Applications Awards Applications Awards Applications Awards Applications Awards

Austria 19 1 6 1 6 0 31 0

Belgium 25 0 23 1 8 0 – –

CzechRep. – – – – 11 0 11 1

Denmark 43 1 – – 18 2 – –

Finland 54 0 24 2 22 1 25 0

France 90 4 62 4 54 5 47 5

Germany 137 4 78 2 56 4 57 4

Greece 12 1 4 0 8 1 6 0

Hungary 26 0 15 1 17 1 10 0

Ireland 33 0 12 0 – – – –

Italy – – 44 0 47 2 57 0

Netherlands 64 4 38 3 26 5 24 3

Norway 27 0 15 1 16 0 – –

Poland – – – – – – 24 1

Portugal 13 1 7 0 28 0 12 0

Spain 133 5 104 2 70 1 47 0

Sweden – – 54 0 51 2 79 1

Switzerland 36 2 30 4 19 1 37 4

Turkey – – – – – – 7 1

UK 65 2 106 4 – – – –

Total 777 25 622 25 457 25 474 20

Table 8:ApplicationsandAwardspercountryandcall


Figure 7:Redcolumns:TotalnumbersofEUROCOREScollaborativelinksbetweenscientistsworkingintheindicatedcountries.Greycolumns:Thenumberofcollaborationlinksnormalisedper80,000FTEofresearchersinthosecountries(FTEdatafromScience,TechnologyandCompetitiveness,keyfiguresreport2008/2009;http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/publication_en.cfm)

IV. Main Findings

DE FR UK NL ES IT SE CH BE AT DK FI NO CZ PL IE HU PT GR TotalDE 151 210 155 174 110 101 46 96 40 61 39 22 24 24 33 29 22 9 6 1352FR 210 136 150 95 83 70 46 35 47 24 20 28 15 20 17 19 13 12 8 1048UK 155 150 59 88 67 49 54 30 37 44 30 21 29 24 24 19 20 9 4 913NL 174 95 88 46 59 33 43 41 32 19 32 21 21 16 16 16 11 5 9 777ES 110 83 67 59 65 44 26 27 32 23 18 11 12 24 21 24 22 13 8 689IT 101 70 49 33 44 32 8 19 22 16 8 7 6 9 9 4 4 9 5 455SE 46 46 54 43 26 8 20 12 8 6 26 30 27 4 4 12 6 2 1 381CH 96 35 30 41 27 19 12 23 8 24 8 3 8 6 9 5 4 5 0 363BE 40 47 37 32 32 22 8 8 20 3 11 14 4 12 11 7 3 3 2 316AT 61 24 44 19 23 16 6 24 3 9 5 7 4 12 8 2 3 1 3 274DK 39 20 30 32 18 8 26 8 11 5 9 11 14 2 0 4 3 3 1 244FI 22 28 21 21 11 7 30 3 14 7 11 13 10 13 1 3 1 1 3 220

NO 24 15 29 21 12 6 27 8 4 4 14 10 20 2 0 2 2 7 1 208CZ 24 20 24 16 24 9 4 6 12 12 2 13 2 3 8 4 5 0 3 191PL 33 17 24 16 21 9 4 9 11 8 0 1 0 8 5 8 6 0 0 180IE 29 19 19 16 24 4 12 5 7 2 4 3 2 4 8 6 10 2 1 177

HU 22 13 20 11 22 4 6 4 3 3 3 1 2 5 6 10 4 1 0 140PT 9 12 9 5 13 9 2 5 3 1 3 1 7 0 0 2 1 3 0 85GR 6 8 4 9 8 5 1 0 2 3 1 3 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 56

Total 1352 1048 913 777 689 455 381 363 316 274 244 220 208 191 180 177 140 85 56

Table 9:Numbersofresearchersinanindicatedcountry,andthenumbersofresearcherstheycollaboratedwithintheotherindicatedcountrieswithintheEUROCORESschemein2003-2009. N.B.:SeveralEUROCORESprogrammesincludescientistsfundedbynon-Europeanorganisations.ThisdatahasnotbeenincludedinthisTable.

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

DE FR UK NL ES IT SE CH BE AT DK FI NO CZ PL IE HU PT GR0


Preferred partners by country

In thissurvey,severalorganisations referred to theEUROCORESschemeasoneofthebestexamplesofEuropeancross-bordercooperationinresearchfunding.WethereforewishedtoanalysethevastamountofdatagatheredconcerningthenumbersofEuropean-widelinksbetweenindividualresearchersintheframeworkoftheEUROCORESschemein2003-2009.Moreover,someofthefundingorganisationswishedtoacquireinformationonthecollaborativelinkstheirnationalprincipalinvestiga-torshavecreatedintheframeworkoftheEUROCORESscheme.

Table9illustratesthecollaborativelandscapeoftheEUROCORESscheme.Thefiguresintherowsandcolumnsofthematrixshowthenumbersofindividualresearchersworkingintheindicatedcountry,andthenumbersofresearchers they collaborate with in the other indicated countries. Thus, for instance, 210 researchers based in Francehavecollaboratedwith151researchersbasedinGermany,150basedintheUKand95basedintheNetherlands.Thediagonalentriesthereforecorrespondtothenumberofcollaborativelinksbetweenscientistsinthesamecountry(e.g.150researchersinGermanycollaboratewitheachotherwithintheEUROCORESscheme.

Table9showsthatthefiveleadingcountriesinabsolutenumbersofinternationalresearchcollaborationswithinEUROCORESareGermany,UK,France,theNetherlandsandSpain.

TheredcolumnsinFigure7showthetotalnumbersofinternationalplusdomesticcollaborativelinksoftheresearchersintheindicatedcountries(seebottomrowofTable9).Thegreycolumnsshowthesesamenumbersof linksnormalisedagainstFull-TimeEquivalentsofresearchersinthosecountries.Accordingtothenormal-iseddata,thefivetopcountriesasfarascollaborativelinksof their researchers are concerned are the Netherlands, Ireland,Switzerland,NorwayandBelgium.

7. Cross-border cooperation between individual researchers

Cooperationbetweenindividualresearchersisacompo-nentofthissurvey,andthustheorganisationswereaskedtoestimate:• Thenumberofcooperativecross-borderresearchprojects outside formal agreements or specificschemes;

• Thenumberofpublicationsstemmingfrominternationalresearchcollaborations,andtoindicatethethreemostpreferredpartnercountriesofsuchcollaborations.

Surprisingly,thesedatadonotseemtobesystematicallycollectedbytheorganisations,oratleastmined,andthustheanswersbelowhavetobetakenwithreservations.

Research projects outside of formal agreements and specific schemes

Halfoftheorganisations(20)providedaroughestimateofthenumberofcross-borderresearchprojectsoutsideformalcooperationagreementsorjointschemes(Table10).Fourofthemstatedthatthenumberwaszero.InallothercaseswecanfindthatthenumberofresearchprojectswithinEuropeoutweighsthenumberofresearchcollabora-tionsbeyondEurope.

Publications stemming from international collaborations

Toestimatethenumberofpublicationsresultingfromprojectsfundedbytherespectiveparticipatingorganisa-tionsoutsideofformalcross-borderagreementsseemstobeanevenmoredifficulttask.Thus,only15organisationsofthe40providedanswers.Thedatahavetobetakenwithreservations,especiallybecausethetimeframeinwhichthesepublicationswereachievedhadnotbeenspecified.

Astheresultsseemedsovaguewedecidedtopresentonlytheresultsregardingthemostpreferredpartnercoun-triesofresearchcollaborations(Table11):Germanyisinthelead(14replies),followedbytheUnitedStates(10replies),theUK(eightreplies)andFrance(sixreplies).Sweden,Finland,China,Belgium,theCzechRepublicandAustriawereallmentionedonce.


8. Future plans and concerns

Finally,theorganisationswereinvitedtocommentonforwardlookingaspects,likethedemandbytherespec-tivenationalresearchcommunityformoresupportand/orresourcesforcross-bordercollaboration,persistinglegalandotherhurdlestocross-borderfundingandplanstoenterexistingcooperationagreementsortolaunchnewones.Eventually,theparticipantscouldsharetheirviewsoninitiativeswhichtheyconsideredtobeimportantfortherealisationandfuturedevelopmentoftheEuropeanResearchArea.

Demandforsupportforcross-bordercollaboration by national research communities

Alargemajority,32organisations(80%),statedthatsuchdemandsfromtheirresearchcommunityexist,threeorganisationsarenotawareofsuchdemandsandfiveorganisationsprovidednoanswer.Thereisevidentlyastrongpushbythenationalresearchcommunitiesformoremeansandpossibilitiesforinternationalresearchcoopera-tion.Analysingthereplieswecanfind:

• Theorganisationswhichcurrentlyhavetodealwithdemandstoexpandcross-bordercollaborationsmentionspecificclaimswhichcanbesummarisedasfollows:–Tomakemorefundsavailableforcross-bordercoop-

eration–Tosignadditionalcooperationagreements–Tofosterinternationalresearchers’mobilityconnected

with international collaborations–Toexpandcollaborationsindoctoraltrainingandearlystagepostdoctoralqualification

–Tosimplifyreviewingand/ordecisionmakingproce-duresinjointprogrammes

–Toprovidemoreopportunitiestouseinternationallargescalefacilitiestoenablelong-termcooperationwithinternationalpartners

•Thosethreeorganisationswhicharenotconfrontedwiththedemandtooffermoremeansforinternationalcollaborationsprovidethefollowinginterpretations:TheDanishCouncilforIndependentResearchhastomeetrequeststoincreasethefundingfornationalcooperation.InthecaseofPoland,sufficientfundingforcross-bordercollaborationsisavailableaccordingtotheFoundationforPolishResearch,butispartlynot

IV. Main Findings

Country Name of Research Organisation (RO) Projects within Europe (approx. no.)

Projects beyond Europe (approx. no.)

Austria AustrianScienceFund 500 200

Belgium NationalFundforScientificResearch 100 30

Cyprus ResearchPromotionFoundation 0 0

Denmark DanishNationalResearchFoundation 900 400

Estonia EstonianScienceFoundation 400 100

France NationalInstituteofHealthandMedicalResearch 4,797 3,000

France NationalCenterforScientificResearch 18,000 10,000

Germany GermanResearchFoundation 4,000 2,000

Germany MaxPlanckSocietyfortheAdvancementofSciences 1,700 840

Greece NationalHellenicResearchFoundation 40 5

Ireland IrishResearchCouncilforScience,EngineeringandTechnology(IRCSET)

18 n.a.

Ireland ScienceFoundationIreland 732 539

Italy NationalInstituteofNuclearPhysics 0 0

Luxembourg NationalResearchFund 0 0

Poland FoundationforPolishScience 10 3

Slovakia SlovakResearchandDevelopmentAgency 20 2

Slovenia SlovenianResearchAgency 0 0

Spain SpanishNationalResearchCouncil 1,000 500

Sweden VINNOVA(TheSwedishGovernmentalAgency forInnovationSystems)

2 6

Switzerland SwissNationalScienceFoundation 1,050 300

Table 10:Estimatednumberofcross-borderresearchprojectsintheabsenceofformalagreementsorspecificschemes


evenspent.TheSwedishResearchCouncilperceivesa high degree of satisfaction with the status quo.

Main legal hurdles to cross-border funding

Withoutlegal,operationalorbudgetaryconstraintstheparticipatingorganisationsmightbeinabetterpositiontomeetthedemandsoftheirrespectiveresearchcommuni-tiesformorecross-bordercooperationorcouldencouragesuchcollaborationsevenmoreproactively.Atleast27organisationsnamedexistinglegalandotherobstacles.

Thefollowingtopicswerementioned:• Financiallimitations,ofteninadditiontolegalconstraints,are seenmainly by Eastern European organisa-tions(CzechScienceFoundation,EstonianScienceFoundation,HungarianScientificResearchFund,SlovenianResearchAgency)asmajorimpediments.However,someofthemajorplayersincross-borderresearchcooperationsuchastheFrenchNationalCenterforScientificResearchandtheItalianNationalResearchCouncilalsostatethatbudgetaryconstraintsinhibitfurtherinternationalendeavours.

• Theprovisionoffundsforcross-bordercooperationislimitedbylegaland/orsocietalreservationsagainsttheinvestmentofnationaltaxpayers’moneyoutsidethecountryinthecaseofanumberofCentral,WesternandNorthernEuropeancountries.Theprimarytaskoftherespectivenationalorganisationisthusseen

insupporting thedomestic researchcommunity.Interestingly,thisissuewasmainlyraisedbyorganisa-tionsfrom(North-)WesternEuropeancountries(ScienceFoundationIreland,theSwedishResearchCouncil,theSwedishGovernmentalAgencyforInnovationSystems,theSwedishResearchCouncil for Environment,AgriculturalSciencesandSpatialPlanning,theSwissNationalScienceFoundationandtheNetherlandsOrganisationforAppliedScientificResearch).

• Thelackofharmonisationoffiscallawsandthelimitedportabilityofsocialsecuritybenefitsandpensionrightsisviewedbyanumberoforganisationsasobstaclestointensifyingcross-borderfunding.TheseaspectswerementionedbytheFrenchAtomicEnergyCommission,theGermanMaxPlanckSocietyandtheIrishResearchCouncilforScience,EngineeringandTechnology.

• Differencesbetweenthenationalresearchsystemsarestillmajorbarriersforcooperationforanumberoforganisations:–Country-specificregulationsandtheheterogeneityofnationalsystemsespeciallywhencommonpotfundingisinvolved(AustrianScienceFund,ResearchCouncilofNorway);

–Lackofconfidenceinotherorganisations’reviewproceduresoradministrativehandling (GermanResearchFoundation,theBritishArtsandHumanitiesResearchCouncil).

Country Organisation Three main partner countries

Estonia EstonianScienceFoundation Sweden Finland Germany

France AtomicEnergyCommission USA Germany UK

France NationalInstituteofHealthandMedicalResearch USA UK Germany

France NationalCenterforScientificResearch USA Germany UK

Greece NationalHellenicResearchFoundation Germany France UK

Hungary HungarianScientificResearchFund Germany USA France

Ireland IrishResearchCouncilforScience,EngineeringandTechnology(IRCSET)

Germany UK France

Italy NationalInstituteofNuclearPhysics USA Germany France

Italy ItalianNationalAgencyforNewTechnologies,EnergyandtheEnvironment

USA Germany China

Luxembourg NationalResearchFund Belgium France USA

Poland FoundationforPolishScience Germany USA UK

Slovakia SlovakResearchandDevelopmentAgency Czech Republic

Austria Germany

Slovenia SlovenianResearchAgency Germany USA UK

Spain SpanishNationalResearchCouncil France Germany UK

UnitedKingdom MedicalResearchCouncil USA Germany France

Table 11:Mainpartnercountriesofcollaborativepublicationsstemmingfromresearchfundedbyorconductedbywithintherespectiveorganisation


Ontheotherhand,nineorganisationsmentionedneitherlegal nor other hurdles to further international collaboration. TheDanishCouncilforIndependentResearchstates:“IntheNordiccontext,itisgeneralproceduretofollowtherulesoftheadministratingcountry.”TheNationalResearchFundofLuxembourgpointsout:“Almostalllegalhurdleshavebeenovercome.Commonpotfundingisquitedifficultbutpossible.”

Plans to implement existing cooperation agreements or to launch new ones

Approximately85%oftheparticipatingorganisations(34outof40,includingallresearchperformingorganisations)plantosignnewcooperationagreements,whereassixorganisationsdonothavesuchplans.

Theorganisationswerealsoaskedtospecifythetypesofcooperationagreementstheywouldliketoconclude.Altogether,33organisationsrepliedtothisquestion.Theyprovidedthefollowingsetsofanswers:• Amajorityof16organisationswasratherunspecificand

mainlyhighlightedthattheywereopentoalltypesofagreements,betheybi-ormultilateral,formalcontractsorMemorandaofUnderstanding.

• Sixorganisations(thetwoBelgianorganisations,theResearchPromotionFoundationofCyprus,theItalian NationalAgencyforNewTechnologies,EnergyandtheEnvironment,theResearchCouncilofNorwayandtheSwedishGovernmentalAgencyforInnovationSystems)wouldprefertosignbilateralagreements.

• ThethreeD-A-CHorganisationsunanimouslyprioritisetheenlargementofthe‘LeadAgency’agreement.

• Individualreplieshighlighted:–JointProgramming (CzechScienceFoundation)or “jointcallsERA-Net type” (EstonianScienceFoundation);

–A“collaborationregardinggraduatefellowswithNSF,US”(DanishNationalResearchFoundation);

–Agreementsconcerninglargefacilities(TheNationalInstituteofNuclearPhysics,Italy);

–“LaunchingtheTopResearchInitiative(NordForsk)”(SwedishResearchCouncil);

–Lowering“thebarrierstocollaborationthroughelimi-natingdoublejeopardyinpeerreview”(EngineeringandPhysicalSciencesResearchCouncil,UK);

–A“globalpartnershipinchronicnon-communicablediseases”(MedicalResearchCouncil,UK);

–Newmodelsofinstitutionalcooperation:TheGermanMaxPlanckSocietyspecifies itplans toestab-lish‘InternationalMaxPlanckResearchCenters’:“InternationalMaxPlanckPartnerCentersareanewinstrumentdesignedspecificallywiththeaimofsignifi-cantlyenhancingcollaborationwiththemostimportantpartnercountries.InternationalMaxPlanckCentersarebasedonapeerreviewedresearchprograminapioneeringresearchfieldofscientificinteresttothe

MaxPlanckSocietyandtoaninternationalresearchinstitutionoruniversity.TheprojectwillbecarriedoutbyatleastonescientistfromtheMaxPlanckSocietyand one international colleague. These two scientists formthe‘LeadingTeam’oftheCenter.”

Initiatives to develop the European Research Area

Thefinalquestiononinitiativestobetakenbynationalresearch organisations for the development of theEuropeanResearchAreawasansweredby34organi-sations.AltogetherthereisstrongsupportforthegoalsdefinedintheEUROHORCsandESFVisiononaGloballyCompetitiveERAandtheirRoadMapofActions.Atleast12organisationsmentionedastopprioritiestherealisa-tionoftheEuropeanGrantUnion,themutualopeningofnationalprogrammesand,morespecifically,therealisationofthe‘LeadAgency’procedure,aswellasmultilateralcollaborations(involvingselectedpartnersalsofromoutsideEurope).• Theorganisationshavedifferentopinionsaboutwhether

futurejointprogrammesshouldbepurelyresearcher-drivenorwhethertheyshouldbuildontop-downJointProgramminginitiatives.Atleastninestatementsaddressthesetopics,andsomeorganisationssuggestpotentialways forward:–“AEUROCORES/TOPCORES/ERA-NetCallstyleofinstrumentforcollaborationoflargertransnationalconsortia(bottom-upandtop-down),basedonreli-ableandproperlydimensionedfinancialcommitmentsoftherespectiveorganisations”(AustrianScienceFund);

–“Improvingcooperationamongresearchfundingagen-cies,injointcallsandprogrammesaswellasJointProgramming”(AcademyofFinland);

–“TheidealsituationwillbetodedicatesomeofthenationalfundingtojointEuropeanprogrammesinspecificareasofinterestforEuropeandthedifficultyistofindthebestscheme.Thetopicsshouldbeselectedbytheorganisationsandtheprogrammesshouldbeopentothenumberoforganisationsinvolved(smallorlargenumber).”(SpanishNationalResearchCouncil);

–“Setofcommonpriorities,coordinatedimplementa-tionofAgreements”(ResearchPromotionFoundationofCyprus).

• Twotopicswhichwerenamedbyfiveorganisationsare:–Increasingthemobilityofresearchers(e.g.,byenlargingthe‘MoneyFollowsResearcher’agreementtomorepartners);

–Morecooperationinpeerreviewbasedonharmo-nisedreviewprocedures(thesupportforthistopicisremarkablystrongbyEasternEuropeanorganisationsfromHungary,Poland,SlovakiaandSloveniaplustheBritishMedicalResearchCouncil).

IV. Main Findings


• BudgetaryissueswerementionedbytheAcademyofFinland,theSwedishResearchCouncilforEnvironment,AgriculturalSciencesandSpatialPlanningandtheSwedishResearchCouncil.TheseorganisationsexpresstheirsupportforEuropeancommonpotfunding.TheNationalResearchFundofLuxembourgisinfavourofproviding“morenationalfundingdedicated to interna-tionalcooperationataseriouslevel”.

• Threeorganisations(DanishCouncilforIndependentResearch,GermanMaxPlanckSocietyandItalianNationalResearchCouncil)wouldliketosupportregionalinitiativesorclustersofexcellenceascontributionstobuildingtheERA.

• Individualissuesconcerned:–“Simplificationofadministrativeprocesses,harmoni-sationoftaxes,improvementofresearcher’sstatus”(FrenchAtomicEnergyCommission);

–“Tomakecross-bordergrantgivingforfoundationseasier”(SwedishRiksbankensJubileumsfond);

–“Wethink[the]developmentoftrulyinternationalgraduateprogrammeswillhavealargecontributiontomaketotheERA.”(IrishResearchCouncilforScience,EngineeringandTechnology).

Insummary,organisationsinEuropearefacedwithstrongdemandsbytheirnationalresearchcommunitiestofurtherextendtheirEuropeanandinternationalcollabora-tions.However,theyhavetocopewithlegalandbudgetarylimitationsaswellaswithsocietalreservationsonspendingnationaltax-payers’moneyabroad.Allinall,wecanfindsomefocalpointsofcommoninterests,suchasmultilateralcollaborationsbetweenorganisationsinEuropeandpartlybeyond,flexibleresponsestotheneedsofthescientificcommunities,e.g.,byintroducingjointresearcher-drivenprogrammes,bydevelopingflexibleproceduresforthedefinitionofcommonlyrelevantresearchthemesandforsupportingthemobilityofresearchers.

9. Joint research topics as stimuli for international research cooperation

AsurveybyBoekholt et al.,publishedin2009onbehalfoftheEuropeanCommission16,identifiesagrowingimpor-tanceofpolicygoalsandsocietalneedsasstimuliforcross-borderresearchcollaboration.Twoparadigmsforcooperationinscience,technologyandinnovation(STI)areidentified:the‘narrow’versusthe‘broad’STIcoopera-tionparadigm.“InthenarrowSTIcooperationparadigm,thedriversaremainlytoimprovethequality,scopeandcriticalmassinscienceandresearchbylinkingnational(financialandhuman)resourcesandknowledgewithresourcesandknowledgeinothercountries.”17 In a broad sensethisparadigmappliestoresearchorganisationsinEurope,especiallyinviewoftheirpoliciestosupportandfosterbottom-upcooperativeresearchendeavoursoftheirrespectivecommunities.

By‘broadSTIcooperationparadigm’theauthorsunder-standthat“STIcooperationbecomesameanstoreachotherpolicyends”.InthisrespecttheyidentifyfourdriversbehindSTIcooperation:nationalcompetitiveness,supportforlessdevelopedcountriesbydevelopingSTIcapabili-ties,meetingofglobalsocietalchallengesandfosteringstablediplomaticrelationshipsensuringindirectlyinterna-tionalsecurity.Inreviewingtheresearchpolicyagendasof20Europeanandnon-Europeancountriestheauthorsfoundthatexcellenceatagloballevel(the‘narrow’R&Dparadigm)isstillthemaindriverforSTIcooperation.But,“externaltriggers,suchastheglobalisationofR&D,theurgencyofcertainglobalchallenges,theemergenceofnewplayersontheglobalresearchmarketandthelivelypolicydebateabouttheplaceofEuropeasthe‘mostexcellentplacetodoresearchintheworld’havestimulatedinterestformorestrategicthinkingontheroleofSTIcollaborationwithinandoutsideEurope.”18

Notably,intheCommission’s‘Europe2020’strategy,theendorsementofcollaborativeresearchwithintheERAonlyplaysaminorroleascomparedtootherissues,suchasovercomingthecurrenteconomiccrisisandassuringgrowthandemployment.Oneoutofseven‘flagshipinitia-tives’whichthereportputsforwardisgearedtobuildingan‘InnovationUnion’.Itclaimsthat“everylinkshouldbestrengthenedintheinnovationchain,from‘bluesky’researchtocommercialisation”andstipulatesthattheCommissionwillworkto“completetheEuropeanResearchArea,todevelopastrategicresearchagendafocusedonchallengessuchasenergysecurity,transport,climatechange and resource efficiency, health and ageing, environmentally-friendlyproductionmethodsandland

16.Boekholt,P.,Edler,J.,Cunningham,P.,andFlanagan,K.(2009)Drivers of International collaboration in research,EuropeanUnion.17.Boekholtet al.(2009),p.8.18.Boekholtet al.(2009),p.18.


management,andtoenhancejointprogrammingwithMemberStatesandregions”19.

ThroughJointProgrammingtheCommissionseekstoovercomefragmentationofpublicresearchinERA.Theconceptinvolves“MemberStatesengagingvoluntarilyandonavariable-geometrybasisinthedefinition,develop-mentandimplementationofcommonstrategicresearchagendasbasedonacommonvisionofhowtoaddressmajorsocietalchallenges”20.

WithrespecttotheresultsofoursurveyitcanbeconcludedthatresearchorganisationsinEuropearepreparedtostimulatecross-borderresearchcollaborationinthesenseofthe‘narrow’andthe‘broad’STIcoopera-tionparadigm.But,withthegrowingpoliticaldrivetowardsstrategicallyorientedresearchsuchasJointProgramming,researchfundingandperformingorganisationsmightbeinapositiontopartlycounterbalancethistrendbyprovidingbottom-upmechanismsforcross-bordercooperationbetweentheircommunities.

19.EuropeanCommission:COM(2010),2020,p.10.20.EuropeanCommission:COM(2008),468final,p.8.

10. Concluding remarks

ThepresentsurveyfillsagapinthatitbuildsontheexperienceofthemainpublicfundersofresearchinEurope,infosteringcross-borderresearchcollaborationaspartoftheirresearchfundingandperformingstrate-gies.Wemainlylookedattheincentivesandconditionsforcross-borderresearchbyaskingtheorganisationsabouttheircooperationagreements,jointfundingactivi-ties,andproceduralaspectssuchaspeerreviewanddecisionmaking.Whatstillremainstobestudiedaretheactualoutcomesofcross-borderresearchcollaborations,beyondco-authoredpublicationsandco-patents.InthissenseBoekholtet al.criticise:“WhilepolicymakersandresearchfundersapplymanyassumptionsregardinghowinternationalSTIcollaborationhasaneffectonvariouspolicygoals,thesearerarelyspecifiedoroperationalisedintheimplementationoftheinstrumentsinplace.”21ACRESTreportof2008thereforerecommendsto“developamethodologyandestablishanevaluationsystemforpolicymeasurestowardstheinternationalisationofR&Dcoveringex-anteevaluation,monitoringandimpactassessment.Here,appropriatequantitativeandqualitativeindicatorsneedtobedeveloped.AEuropeanapproachcouldbeconsideredtoallowbenchmarkingofnationalinternation-alisationperformance.”22

ESFrunsaMemberOrganisationForumonex-postevaluation of research programmes,which focuseson‘Indicatorsof Internationalisation’.TheForumhasconductedapilotstudywiththeaimofdevelopingindi-cators that could account for the internationalisation of Europeanresearchactivitiesandprogrammes,tobeusedbytheESFMemberOrganisationsthemselves,andtheirgovernmentsforbenchmarkingandpolicyevaluation.23 In thisrespecttheForumcanbeexpectedtoexploreanareawhichuptonowhaslargelyremained‘terraincognita’.

21.Boekholtet al.(2009),p.iv.22.EuropeanCommission(2008)CREST report on the Internationalisation of R&D Facing the Challenge of Globalisation: Approaches to a Proactive International Policy in S&T, January 2008, p.20.23.Cf.thedescriptionoftheESFMemberOrganisationForumonEvaluation:IndicatorsofInternationalisation:http://www.esf.org/activities/mo-fora/evaluation-indicators-of-internationalisation.html.

IV. Main Findings


TheauthorsofthesurveyareDrBeateScholz,Scholz–Consultingtrainingcoaching,Germany,andProfessorMarjaMakarow,ChiefExecutiveoftheEuropeanScienceFoundation.

Theitemsoftheon-linequestionnaireweredesignedbyDrScholz,ProfessorDieterImboden,PresidentoftheSwissNationalScienceFoundationandPresidentofEUROHORCs,andProfessorMakarow.DrScholzrealisedthe collection and the aggregation of the data.

Theauthorswishtothankallorganisationswhoprovidedtheirdataforthesurvey.DrFarzamRanjbaran(ESF)isacknowledgedforprovidingthedataontheEUROCORESscheme,andDrVanessaCampo-Ruiz(ESF)forcriticalcommentsonthemanuscript.

V. Authors and acknowledgements

VI. Annexes


Country Research Organisation Type of Organisation

1 Austria FondszurFörderungderwissen-schaftlichenForschung

FWF AustrianScienceFund RFO

2 Belgium FondsdelaRechercheScientifique FNRS FundforScientificResearch RFO

3 Belgium FondsWetenschappelijkOnderzoek FWO FundforScientificResearch RFO

4 Cyprus Ιδρυμα Προώθησης ‘Eρευνας (ΙΠΕ) RPF ResearchPromotionFoundation RFO

5 CzechRepublic GrantováagenturaČeskérepubliky GAČR CzechScienceFoundation RFO

6 Denmark DetStrategiskeForskningsråd DCSR* Danish Council for Strategic Research

RFO

7 Denmark DanmarksGrundforskningsfond DNRF DanishNationalResearchFoundation

RFO

8 Denmark DetFrieForskningsråd DCIR DanishCouncilforIndependentResearch

RFO

9 Estonia SihtasutusEestiTeadusfond ETF EstonianScienceFoundation RFO

10 Finland SuomenAkatemia AKA AcademyofFinland RFO

11 France Commissariatàl’EnergieAtomique CEA AtomicEnergyCommission RPO

12 France Institut National de la Santé et de la RechercheMédicale

INSERM NationalInstituteofHealth andMedicalResearch

RPO

13 France CentreNationaldelaRechercheScientifique

CNRS NationalCenterforScientificResearch

RPO

14 Germany DeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft DFG GermanResearchFoundation RFO

15 Germany Max-Planck-GesellschaftzurFörderungderWissenschaften

MPG MaxPlanckSocietyfortheAdvancementofSciences

RPO

16 Greece Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών NHRF NationalHellenicResearchFoundation

RPO

17 Hungary OrszágosTudományosKutatásiAlapprogramok

OTKA HungarianScientificResearchFund

RFO

18 Ireland EnterpriseIreland Enterprise EnterpriseIreland RFO

19 Ireland IrishResearchCouncilforScience,EngineeringandTechnology

IRCSET IrishResearchCouncilforScience,EngineeringandTechnology

RFO

20 Ireland ScienceFoundationIreland SFI ScienceFoundationIreland RFO

21 Italy InstitutoNazionalediFisicaNucleare

INFN National Institute of Nuclear Physics

RPO

22 Italy EnteperleNuovetecnologie,l’Energiael’Ambiente

ENEA ItalianNationalAgencyforNewtechnologies,EnergyandtheEnvironment

RPO

23 Italy ConsiglioNazionaledelleRicerche CNR NationalResearchCouncil RPO

24 Luxembourg FondsNationaldelaRecherche FNR NationalResearchFund RFO

25 Norway Forskningsrådet RCN ResearchCouncilofNorway RFO

26 Poland FundacjanarzeczNaukiPolskiej FNP* FoundationforPolishScience RFO

27 Romania Consiliul National al Cercetarii StiintificedinInvatamantulSuperior

CNCSIS–UEFISCSU

NationalUniversityResearchCouncil–ExecutiveAgencyforHigherEducationandResearchFunding

RFO

28 Slovakia Agentúranapodporuvýskumu avývoja

APVV SlovakResearchandDevelopmentAgency

RFO

Annex 1

Organisations participating in the surveyRFO,researchfundingorganisationRPO,researchperformingorganisation


29 Slovenia JavneagencijezaraziskovalnodejavnostRepublikeSlovenije

ARRS SlovenianResearchAgency RFO

30 Spain ConsejoSuperiordeInvestigacionesCientíficas

CSIC SpanishNationalResearchCouncil

RPO

31 Sweden ForskningsrådetFormas FORMAS TheSwedishResearchCouncilforEnvironment,AgriculturalSciencesandSpatialPlanning

RFO

32 Sweden RiksbankensJubileumsfond RJ RiksbankensJubileumsfond RFO

33 Sweden VerketförInnovationssystem VINNOVA TheSwedishGovernmentalAgencyforInnovationSystems

RFO

34 Sweden Vetenskapsrådet VR SwedishResearchCouncil RFO

35 Switzerland Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur FörderungderwissenschaftlichenForschung

SNSF Swiss National Science Foundation

RFO

36 The Netherlands NederlandseOrganisatievoorToegepastNatuurwetenschappelijkOnderzoek

TNO Netherlands Organisation for AppliedScientificResearch

RPO

37 Turkey TürkiyeBilimselveTeknolojikAraştırmaKurumu

TÜBITAK ScientificandTechnologicalResearchCouncilofTurkey

Mixed

38 UnitedKingdom ArtsandHumanitiesResearchCouncil

AHRC ArtsandHumanitiesResearchCouncil

RFO

39 UnitedKingdom EngineeringandPhysicalSciencesResearchCouncil

EPSRC EngineeringandPhysicalSciencesResearchCouncil

RFO

40 UnitedKingdom MedicalResearchCouncil MRC MedicalResearchCouncil Mixed

N.B.TheDanishCouncilforStrategicResearchrespondedtothesurvey,thoughitisnotamemberofEUROHORCsorESF,asdidtheFoundationforPolishScience(FNP),whichisobserverofEUROHORCsandnotanESFmemberorganisation. The data of both organisations were included.


Annex 2

Questionnaire of the first survey phase (to EUROHORCs member organisations)

Cross-border research cooperation in Europe: Contributions from national research organisations

About this questionnaire: background and objectives

InJanuary2009,ahighlevelworkshopbetweenEURO-HORCsandministersofresearchfromvariousEuropeancountriestookplacefocusingon‘ImplementingtheERA:joiningforcesatnationallevel’.Asaresultofthiswork-shopEuropeanministersaskedEUROHORCstoexplorethecurrentstatusof theEuropeanGrantsUnionbysurveyingexistingcross-bordercollaborationsandjointprojects.EUROHORCshaveinvitedtheESFtoconductthissurvey;ESFassignedthetasktoDr.BeateScholz,Scholz–consultingtrainingcoachinginGermany.

Theobjectiveofthisquestionnaireistothrowlightonthecooperationbetweenbothresearchorganisations(excludingcollaborationsconnectedtoinitiativesbytheEuropeanCommission,e.g.,ERA-Nets)andresearcherswithintheEuropeanResearchArea.Itseekstoanalyseinwhichfieldscross-bordercooperationexists,worksparticularlywellandwhereobstaclespersist.Certainly,theresultofthisexercisecannotyieldanaccuratepictureoftheEuropeanresearchlandscape,butwillratherbea“bestguess”.

Pleasenotethatthisquestionnaireneedstobecompletedinonepass;intermediatestagescannotbesaved.

*indicatesthatthisquestionisobligatory.

Please complete the questionnaire by 30 April 2009.

Basic info

1. Name of Research Organisation (RO)*

2. Type of Research Organisation*

n ResearchFundingOrganisation(RFO)n ResearchPerformingOrganisation(RPO)n Mixed n Other

3. Budget (pleaseenterintegernumbers)

a.TotalannualbudgetofRO(in2008) €

b.BudgetforEuropeanactivities(in2008) €

c.BudgetforinternationalactivitiesbeyondEurope(in 2008) €

d.Budgetforbottom-upresearchprojectsorpeoplefunding %oftotalbudget

e.Top-downresearchprogrammesorinitiatives %oftotalbudget

Cross-border collaborations between ROs

4.Doesyourorganisationhaveformalcooperationagreements with ROs in other European countries? *

n No n Yes

Ifyes,howmany?Please count only such agreements which are actually in use.

PleasenamethefivemostrelevantROs yourorganisationcooperateswith

Organisation Country

a.HasyourorganisationsignedtheEUROHORCs’‘Moneyfollowsresearcher’agreement?

n No n Yes


Ifyes,haveyouimplementeditandhow?

b.DoesyourorganisationhaveformalcooperationagreementswithotherROsbeyondEurope?

n No n Yes

Ifyes,howmany?

Pleasenamethefivemostrelevantorganisations


5.Doesyourorganisationparticipateinjointprogrammes with other ROs in Europe? * (excluding collaborations connected to initiatives by the European Commission, e.g., ERA-Nets)

n No n Yes

a.Ifyes,pleaseindicatethescopeoftheseprogrammes

n Jointlyperformedresearchprogrammen Jointlyfundedresearchprogrammen Programmetosupportthecareeradvancement

of researchers n Exchangeof(researchoradministrative)

personneln Other

PleasenamethefivemostrelevantROswithwhichyourorganisationmaintainsjointprogrammes


b.Dothesejointprogrammesmainlyencompassbilateralormultilateralcollaborations?

n Bilateral

n Multilateral

c.Ifmultilateralcollaborationsexist,pleaseprovidethebestexamplesregardingthetypeofschemeandthecooperatingorganisations(incl.countries)

Cross-border funding

6.DoesyourROhavethelegalmeanstofundresearch outside of the country? *

n No n Yes

7. If yes, do the cross-border collaborations referred to in the previous part of the questionnaire incorporate cross-border funding?

n No n Yes

a.Ifyes,pleaseindicatethebudgetshareofsuchcross-borderfundingwithrespecttotheoverallfunding of your organisation (% of total research funding budget in 2008)

8.Doanyoftheseschemesoperatewith a common pot for funding? (i.e., no justeretour, e.g., like in the case of the EURYI Award) n No n Yes

a.Ifyes,pleaseprovidethebestexamples(type of scheme, organisations involved, overall annual budget for common pot)

9.DoesyourROallowtheportabilityofgrantsoutside the framework of the ‘Money follows researcher’ agreement? please explain

10. Has your RO opened funding schemes to researchers based abroad? please explain


Procedural issues

11.Doesyourorganisationissuejointcallswithcooperating ROs? * (excluding collaborations connected to initiatives by the European Commission, e.g., ERA-Nets)

n No n Yes

a.Ifyes,pleaseprovidethebestexamples (type of programme, organisations/countries involved)

12.Doyouimplementjointpeerreviewprocedures? * (excluding collaborations connected to initiatives by the European Commission, e.g., ERA-Nets)

n No n Yes

a.Ifyes,pleaseprovidethebestexamples (type of programme, elements of peer review)

13.Dothesecollaborationsincludejointdecisionmaking procedures, e.g., regarding the provision of funds?

No,pleaseexplain

Yes,pleaseexplain

Cross-border cooperation by researchers

Attheprincipalinvestigatorlevel,pleaseestimate…

14. … the number of cooperative cross-border research projects funded by or conducted within your RO which have cross-border collaboration without formal agreements or specific schemes

i.withinEurope(approx.no.)

ii.beyondEurope(approx.no.)

15. … the number of publications stemming from international collaborations funded by or conducted within your RO

(approx.no.)

i.Pleaselistthethreemainpartnercountries:

Future actions

16. Is there demand for more resources and/or support for cross-border collaboration by your research community?

Please explain

17. Which are the main (legal) hurdles to more cross-border funding by your organisation?

18. Is your RO considering entering into existing cooperation agreements or launching new agreements? * n No n Yes

a.Ifyes,whichtype?

19. Which initiatives from national research organisations would you consider important for the future development/realisation of the European Research Area?

Annex 2


Cross-border research cooperation in Europe: Contributions from national research organisations

About this questionnaire: background and objectives

InJanuary2009,anumberofEUROHORCsmembers,theESFPresidentandrepresentativesofEuropeanMinistriesofResearchmetinLisbontodiscussthecurrentandpoten-tial contribution of national research organisations to the developmentoftheEuropeanResearchArea(ERA).

Oneof theconclusionsof themeetingwasthat theestablishmentofastrongERAwouldonlybesuccessfuliftheECandthenationalorganisationsworkedtogetherclosely.MuchofthiscooperationwhichisindependentoftheeffortsoftheECisnotwell-knownandprobablyalsounderestimated.

GiventheimportanceofthisissuewithregardtotheongoingdevelopmentofnewECinitiatives,suchasJointProgramming,itwasdecidedthatanoverviewofcross-borderactivitieswouldbeproducedwithinthenextfewmonths.TheEUROHORCsinvitedtheESFtoconductthissurvey.ESFrealisedthetask,togetherwithDr.BeateScholz,Scholz–consultingtrainingcoaching,inJune2009.Thirty-twoofthe45EUROHORCsmemberorgani-sations answered the online questionnaire.

ESFwouldliketoextendthesurveytothosememberorganisationsofESFwhichfundresearcheitherasresearchfundingorganisationsorresearchperformingorganisa-tions,butwhicharenotmembersofEUROHORCs.

Thisinitiativeshouldnotbeinterpretedasascientificendeavourofhighprecisionsbutshouldrathergivearoughoverviewofyourinternationalactivities.Clearly,thesetopicswoulddeserveamuchgreatereffortandamorerefinedquestionnaire,butatthistimeitismoreimportanttohaveyourinputfastasitisneededfortheongoingdiscussiononEuropeansciencepolicy.

Pleasenotethatthisquestionnaireneedstobecompletedinonepass;intermediatestagescannotbesaved.

*indicatesthatthisquestionisobligatory.

Please complete the questionnaire by 30 September 2009.

Basic info

1. Name of Research Organisation (RO) *

2. Type of Research Organisation *

n ResearchFundingOrganisation(RFO)n ResearchPerformingOrganisation(RPO)n Mixedn Other

3. Budget(pleaseenterintegernumbers)

a.TotalannualbudgetofRO(in2008) €

b.BudgetforEuropeanactivities(in2008) €

c.BudgetforinternationalactivitiesbeyondEurope(in 2008) €

d.Budgetforbottom-upresearchprojectsorpeoplefunding %oftotalbudget

e.Top-downresearchprogrammesorinitiatives %oftotalbudget

Cross-border collaborations between ROs

4.Doesyourorganisationhaveformalcooperationagreements with ROs in other European countries? * (excluding collaborations connected to initiatives by the European Commission, e.g., ERA-Nets)

n No n Yes

Ifyes,howmany?Please count only such agreements which are actually in use.

PleasenamethefivemostrelevantROs yourorganisationcooperateswith


Questionnaire of the second survey phase (to ESF member organisations which are not members of EUROHORCs)


a.DoesyourorganisationhaveformalcooperationagreementswithotherROsbeyondEurope?

n No n Yes

Ifyes,howmany?

Pleasenamethefivemostrelevantorganisations


5.Doesyourorganisationparticipateinjointprogrammes with other ROs in Europe? *(excluding collaborations connected to initiatives by the European Commission, e.g., ERA-Nets)

n No n Yes

a.Ifyes,pleaseindicatethescopeoftheseprogrammes

n Jointlyperformedresearchprogrammen Jointlyfundedresearchprogrammen Programmetosupportthecareeradvancement

of researchersn Exchangeof(researchoradministrative)

personneln Other

PleasenamethefivemostrelevantROswithwhichyourorganisationmaintainsjointprogrammes


b.Dothesejointprogrammesmainlyencompassbilateralormultilateralcollaborations?

n Bilateral

n Multilateral

c.Ifmultilateralcollaborationsexist,pleaseprovidethebestexamplesregardingthetypeofschemeandthecooperatingorganisation(incl.countries)

Cross-border funding

6.DoesyourROhavethelegalmeanstofundresearch outside of the country? *

n No n Yes

7. If yes, do the cross-border collaborations referred to in the previous part of the questionnaire, incorporate cross-border funding? (excluding collaborations connected to initiatives by the European Commission, e.g., ERA-Nets)

n No n Yes

a.Ifyes,pleaseindicatethebudgetshareofsuchcross-borderfundingwithrespecttotheoverallfunding of your organisation (% of total research funding budget in 2008)

8.Doanyoftheseschemesoperatewithacommonpot for funding?(i.e., no justeretour, e.g., like in the case of the EURYI Award)n No n Yes

a.Ifyes,pleaseprovidethebestexamples(type of scheme, organisations involved, overall annual budget for common pot)

9.DoesyourROallowtheportabilityofgrantsoutside the country? If yes, have you signed corresponding cooperation agreements with other organisations in order to legitimise the portability of grants?please explain

10. Has your RO opened funding schemes to researchers based abroad?please explain

Annex 2


Procedural issues

11.Doesyourorganisationissuejointcallswithcooperating ROs? *(excluding collaborations connected to initiatives by the European Commission, e.g., ERA-Nets)

n No n Yes

a.Ifyes,pleaseprovidethebestexamples(type of programme, organisations/countries involved)

12.Doyouimplementjointpeerreviewprocedures?*(excluding collaborations connected to initiatives by the European Commission, e.g., ERA-Nets)

n No n Yes

a.Ifyes,pleaseprovidethebestexamples(type of programme, elements of peer review)

13.Dothesecollaborationsincludejointdecisionmaking procedures, e.g., regarding the provision of funds?

No,pleaseexplain

Yes,pleaseexplain

Cross-border cooperation by researchers

Attheprincipalinvestigatorlevel,pleaseestimate…

14. … the number of cooperative cross-border research projects funded by or conducted within your RO which have cross-border collaboration without formal agreements or specific schemes

i.withinEurope(approx.no.)

ii.beyondEurope(approx.no.)

15. … the number of publications stemming from international collaborations funded by or conducted within your RO

(approx.no.)

i.Pleaselistthethreemainpartnercountries:

Future actions

16. Is there demand for more resources and/or support for cross-border collaboration by your research community?

Please explain

17. Which are the main (legal) hurdles to more cross-border funding by your organisation?

18. Is your RO considering entering into existing cooperation agreements or launching new agreements? *n No n Yes

a.Ifyes,whichtype?

19. Which initiatives from national research organisations would you consider important for the future development/realisation of the European Research Area?


Country 1st Call 2nd Call 3rd Call 4th Call

Austria FWF FWF FWF FWF

Belgium FNRS FNRS

FWO FWO FWO

CzechRepublic GAČR GAČRDenmark DRC

Finland AF AF AF AF

France CNRS CNRS CNRS CNRS

INSERM INSERM INSERM INSERM

Germany DFG DFG DFG DFG

Greece NHR NHR NHR NHR

Hungary HSRF OTKA OTKA OTKA

Ireland NRSFB NRSFB

Italy CNR CNR CNR CNR

INFM INFM INFM INFM

Netherlands NWO NWO NWO NWO

Norway RCN RCN RCN

Poland FNP

Portugal FCT FCT FCT FCT

Spain CSIC CSIC CSIC CSIC

Sweden VR VR VR VR

Switzerland SNF SNF SNF SNF

Turkey TÜBITAK

UnitedKingdom EPSRC EPSRC

PPARC PPARC

Annex 3

List of organisations having participated in the EURYI Award programme

2011ISBN:978-2-918428-11-4

Changing Publication Cultures in the HumanitiesYoung Researchers ForumESF Humanities Spring 2011 • 9-11 June 2011, Maynooth, Ireland

European Science Foundation1quaiLezay-Marnésia•BP9001567080Strasbourgcedex•FranceTel: +33 (0)3 88 76 71 00Fax:+33(0)388370532www.esf.org

2011