European Research Council to Address “Fundamental Problems” Undermining Governance, Administration and Operations. (October 6, 2009)

On February 24, 2009 the European Commission announced the formation of a committee of leading experts in science policy, from both Europe and overseas, to start reviewing the work of the European Research Council (ERC).

The 53-page report was published on July 23, 2009. It made nine recommendations for immediate implementation.

Streamline and integrate the governance structures of the ERC:

Establish a funding philosophy appropriate to “frontier”research:

Establish a standing identification committee:

Setting up new procedures for the selection of reviewers and panellists:

Streamline procedures for reviewers and panellists:

Improve Transparency:

Establish a conflict of interest committee:

Compensation of members of the Scientific Council:

Enhance recruitability of scientists into the agency:

In addition the report set out two long-range assessments:

1. ...that a formal re-evaluation of the progress be undertaken in two years. If it is found that the proposed changes have not been implemented, and if there continues to be major problems over the next two years which prevent the ERC from becoming a world-class frontier research organisation, we recommend that the Commission changes the organisation of the ERC from the Executive Agency to an article 171* structure in time for the 8th Framework Programme.
    
       If such a change is made, two essentials conditions would have to be met. The first is that the Governing Board of the new article 171 organisation be made up wholly or mainly (at least 75%) of scientists drawn from a limited number of countries on the exclusive basis of scientific accomplishments and merit and in any case not larger than the present Scientific Council. This is essential to protect the autonomy of the ERC which should be guaranteed both in scientific and managerial terms.
    

2. Secondly, that transition arrangements be made so that current staff of the executive agency is transferred to the new organisation and that there is, therefore, no loss of experience when the new organisation is set up.
    
       In setting up the new organisation it would, of course, be necessary to avoid the administrative, institutional and procedural deficiencies which we have observed in the current arrangements.

Now the ERC’s interim director, Jack Metthey, has told Science|Business how the ERC is responding to the criticisms and recommendations: "My first priority is expert management," and went on to say that the evaluation system is a cornerstone of the ERC’s reputation; it must to be able to attract first-class panel members and external reviewers. "People from say the United States had to pay in advance for trips, several thousand dollars, they would get reimbursed six months later and of course they would say 'never again'" In addition the paperwork had become "a genuine problem", with only 20% of those asked to be remote referees accepting.

Science|Business also reports: "In a move that Metthey considers symbolic of bigger changes taking place at the agency, the ERC has since altered its reimbursement rules. Overseas experts are now repaid in seven days. The acceptance rate of those being asked to be remote referees has also doubled. 'I know we are on the right track,' said Metthey, who having worked at the European Commission since 1988 has long experience of navigating its bureaucratic alleys and cul-de-sacs."

When it comes to the recommendation of the report that the role of ERC director be merged with that of its secretary-general, Dr Matthey says that it is being addressed. The split between the scientific and administrative sides, which made sense when the ERC was first created, is now he concedes “more of a hindrance than anything else." However, the timing of the merger is undecided, although Dr Metthey says: "Our intention will be to do it really as soon as possible. There are already discussions going on."

One change of consequence that is being put into place is that starter grants will be divided into two groups, one for researchers with 2 to 6 years’ post-PhD experience, another for those with 6 to 10 years’ experience, thereby giving candidates in the very early stages of their research careers a better chance of success.

Overall Dr Metthey said: "We have proved we're capable of handling these processes; we need to improve, but we're in the process of doing so."

And he made the point that for all the criticisms, the ERC has processed 15,000 applications, appointed 800 panel members, invited 2,000 remote referees and has 600 grantees working.

 _____________________________________

*Article 171 of the Lisbon Treaty, says the EU can create joint bodies with the structure necessary for the efficient execution of research, technological development and demonstration programmes. If that were done it would give the ERC more freedom and distance from European Commission’s control.