The European Research Council is on the Upward Track Says Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker. (April 8, 2013)

The first secretary general of the European Research Council (ERC), now secretary general of the Human Frontier Science Program Organization in Strasbourg, France, is evincing optimism as regards the future of the organisation, inspired by the US National Science Foundation, whose seed was planted in 2002 but took 4-years to germinate at a: "time when no clear European mechanism to support basic research on a broad front existed. Yet to address this problem, Europe had to recognise the requirement for change and establish the necessary institutional structures for achieving it". According to Professor Winnacker: "Only when the European Commission got involved did the concept begin to float," he continues, "The first two presidents of the ERC — Fotis Kafatos and Helga Nowotny — did an excellent job. And thanks to the ingenuity of the 22-member Scientific Council — the ERC’s strategy and decision-making body — and the strong commitment of the administrative staff, the ERC works well."

Nevertheless it wasn't smooth sailing, the teething problems included over complex administrative procedures leading to excessive red tape for those applying for grants and cumbersome requirements of reportage from awardees.

Sufficient criticism built up so that by 2011 "the recommendation of a task force that investigated the ERC’s governance led to significant streamlining of procedures and the "positions of president of the Scientific Council and of secretary general have been fused to create a President sui generis, based in Brussels and thus able to deal directly on site with the various day-to-day tussles of the job".

The ERC is now headhunting for its third president and according to Professor Winnacker:

[P]resident number three will face several challenges. One is the extremely uneven distribution of returns on investment to the various member states and associated countries. Strict adherence to the council’s core principle of funding excellence alone has highlighted extreme differences in scientific competence over the European continent. More than 98% of the ERC’s grants are awarded to scientists in the old EU-15, with mere crumbs thrown to newer member countries. Although many of these countries have fine academic traditions, their supporting infrastructures tended to be neglected during the time of the iron curtain, and may take a generation or two to restore. The ERC cannot remedy this deficiency alone, but it could have an efficient advisory role.

A particularly interesting problem is the evolution of the relationship between the ERC and the national funding councils. Some in Europe think that the national councils should dissolve and only the ERC survive. But mono-cultures are never ideal and can even be detrimental.

However, Professor Winnacker also concludes on an optimistic note: "the financial outlook for the ERC is positive. Its budget for 2014–20 will rise significantly. Not even our colleagues in the United States can say that." but he also advises that its president must have "a truly European mindset, and one who believes that it is important to build a broader base for frontier research. I hope our best and brightest will take note."

We also recall that several years back US President Barack Obama's then Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, commented that in dealing with members of the US Congress, it helped to have a Nobel Prize. So it may be for ERC president No. 3.