This week: a social innovations programme, fungal research, and efforts to reduce animal experiments

In depth: The German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) has called for ”long-term solidarity with Ukraine”, including financial support for Ukrainian higher education institutions and assistance to refugee researchers and students in Germany.

Full story: DAAD calls for long-term support of Ukrainian academics

Also this week from Research Professional News

Pope asks Max Planck Society to support responsible research—Catholic leader spoke with Max Planck Society president about tackling global challenges

Here is the rest of the German news this week…

Science ministry announces social innovations programme

Germany’s science ministry has started an €11 million programme to fund projects on social innovations. The programme, dubbed Society of Innovations, will support universities and their knowledge transfer and startup centres in promoting social innovations and social entrepreneurship among students and doctoral candidates. “There are masses of good ideas from students and researchers at our universities,” said science minister Bettina Stark-Watzinger. “It is precisely these ideas that we want to help break through.”

Infection institute urges more research on funghi

More money needs to be spent on researching fungal infections, according to the Leibniz Institute for Natural Product Research and Infection Biology, after the World Health Organization published a list of the most important fungal pathogens. The list highlights the need for a better understanding of the causes and spread of fungal infections, the institute said. “What we need, based on the very good analysis of the WHO, is much greater financial support, also from the public sector,” said director Axel Brakhage. “Too little money is invested in research on life-threatening fungal infections, much less than in viral or bacterial infections.”

Charité support animal-testing alternatives

The Charité university hospital in Berlin is providing funding for 10 projects aimed at lessening the need for animal experiments. A total of €1.3 million will be spent on the initiative, the organisation said. Among the funded projects is one that aims to use human tissue to develop alternative models and another set on reducing the number of laboratory animals used per experiment. “We will need very broad-based support initiatives and great staying power to develop new research methods that lead to better treatments for humans, while at the same time potentially reducing animal testing,” said Stefan Hippenstiel, animal welfare spokesperson for Charité.

The post Germany news roundup: 22-28 February appeared first on Research Professional News.

Solidarity with war-torn country must be expressed through funding and action, says German exchange service

The German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) has called for ”long-term solidarity with Ukraine”, including financial support for Ukrainian higher education institutions and assistance to refugee researchers and students in Germany.

In a statement released to mark the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the DAAD’s leader, Joybrato Mukherjee, noted that universities had been attacked and destroyed. He urged Germany to make more resources available to students and researchers remaining in the country, who were attempting to pursue their studies and research under the threat of shelling.

“The war is still continuing a year after Russia’s incursion into Ukraine, and the people there are affected by death, extensive suffering and deprivation,” he said. “The DAAD, its member institutions and student bodies have stood firmly by the people in Ukraine since the war began.”

Multi-year support

Mukherjee said that German universities had demonstrated considerable commitment to welcoming and supporting refugee researchers and students, as well as joint projects with Ukrainian partner universities. But he warned that a better funding commitment from the government was needed to continue the work done in these projects.

“Here in Germany, we need a broad and multi-year support initiative, which must include assistance for Ukrainian refugees, activities to maintain German-Ukrainian higher education partnerships and long-term funding for the rebuilding of universities after the end of the war,” he said.

The diverse support projects implemented by German universities should receive reliable and long-term funding from the federal government, the DAAD said. A close and lasting link between Ukrainian and German academic institutions and research institutions would increase security for all of Europe, the body added.

“We in Germany need to have an action plan until 2030 that ensures the rapid and successful rapprochement of Ukraine with the EU and a comprehensive reconstruction of the Ukrainian higher education system,” Mukherjee wrote.

Closer alignment

One step to achieve this would be to more closely align Ukraine with EU initiatives, such as the European Research Area and the European Higher Education Area, the DAAD proposed.

In its statement, the DAAD said that financial support from the German foreign office and the education and development ministries had enabled it to mobilise about €21 million for projects to maintain higher education links within Ukraine, and providing assistance and scholarships for refugee Ukrainian academics and students in Germany. The DAAD also funded around 170 projects involving German and Ukrainian universities, especially around the provision of digitisation tools to assist teaching and administration at Ukrainian universities.

About 10,000 Ukrainian academics, university staff and students have been supported by the DAAD and the Erasmus programme to date, the statement said.

“It’s inconceivable to imagine the rebuilding of Ukraine after the war without a renewed and reformed Ukrainian education system,” said Serhiy Kvit, president of the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in Ukraine. “The revitalisation of Ukraine after victory in the war will be partly dependent on the role played by Ukrainian universities in further social development within our country. Ongoing German-Ukrainian cooperation will undoubtedly result in more rapid adaptation of Ukrainian higher education institutions to the European academic environment.”

Brain drain

In a separate statement, the Humboldt Foundation, a government-sponsored charity supporting international collaboration, said that in addition to protecting researchers, it was also important to create long-term prospects for them in their home country.

“There should be no permanent brain drain,” the foundation said. “As soon as possible, reintegration in Ukraine should be promoted and cooperation between the Ukrainian higher education sector and the international research community strengthened.”

The foundation hosts the Philipp Schwartz Initiative for scientists at risk. Since spring 2022, 96 researchers from Ukraine have been supported through the initiative at 60 research institutions in Germany.

The post DAAD calls for long-term support of Ukrainian academics appeared first on Research Professional News.

Catholic leader spoke with Max Planck Society president about tackling global challenges

Pope Francis has asked the president of the Max Planck Society to protect science from political and economic influence.

During an audience in the Pope’s private library, Martin Stratmann debated the role of science in addressing global challenges with the head of the Catholic church.

Stratmann said that both scientific and religious leaders had a role to play in ensuring that science and its results are applied responsibly and without prejudice.

‘Research should serve humanity’

“Responsible science is only conceivable within an ethically responsible framework,” Stratmann said. 

“Research should serve the good of humanity, and here quite specifically in the topics of health, climate or world nutrition.”

The leader of the Max Planck Society, which operates several independent fundamental research institutes in Germany, asked the Pope to encourage openness to science among adherents to all faiths. 

“Science and religion can and must contribute together to bringing man and nature back into harmony, in order to be able to meet the challenges of an earth age shaped by the growing influence of man,” Stratmann said.

In return, Pope Francis asked the Max Planck Society to maintain the highest standards of scientific integrity and protect them from political or economic influences. 

“I believe that in our time, support for basic research must be defended and, if possible, strengthened,” the Pope said.

‘Responsibility, not just accountability’

In his speech, which he delivered in writing to audience members, owing to a cold, the Pope stressed that basic research is a public good whose achievements must be put at the service of the common good. 

Using the example of transhumanism, the Pope pointed out ethical limits of what is scientifically possible.

“We need to put responsibility back at the centre of our culture today as care for the other and not just accountability for what you have done,” he said. 

“Because you are not only responsible for what you do, but also and above all for what you do not do, although you could do it.”

The Max Planck delegation included Wolfgang Herrmann, president emeritus of the Technical University of Munich, Anton Losinger, auxiliary bishop in the diocese of Augsburg, and three Max Planck Society Nobel laureates.

The post Pope asks Max Planck Society to support responsible research appeared first on Research Professional News.

“Historic” agreement clears the path for association to EU science programmes, says European Commission president

The European Commission’s president Ursula von der Leyen has said that work can start “immediately” on securing UK association to EU R&D programmes once the agreed Northern Ireland deal is implemented.

Her comments came at a joint press conference with UK prime minister Rishi Sunak, where the leaders hailed a “decisive breakthrough” in talks over trade in Northern Ireland.

UK participation in the R&D programme has been held up owing to a dispute over the Northern Ireland protocol, leaving UK grant winners from the EU’s Horizon Europe programme unable to directly access any funding they win.

Participation in the EU’s nuclear research initiative Euratom and the Earth-observation programme Copernicus has also been put on hold as a result.

But speaking at the press conference on 27 February, the two leaders confirmed an agreement on the protocol had been reached.

‘Free-flowing trade in the UK’

The deal has been described as “a breakthrough” by Sunak and as “historic” by von der Leyen. Agreed in principle by the two leaders, it includes issues such as medicines approval, taxes on goods, and a Stormont “brake” for changes to EU goods rules.

“Together we have changed the original protocol and today are announcing the new Windsor Framework,” Sunak said.

“Today’s agreement delivers free-flowing trade within the whole of the United Kingdom, protects Northern Ireland’s place in our union and safeguard’s sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland.”

Sunak said on Twitter: “We’re also delivering a landmark settlement on medicines. From now on, drugs approved for use by the UK’s medicines regulator will be automatically available in every pharmacy and hospital in Northern Ireland.”

‘Good news for scientists’

Von der Leyen said: “We knew we had to work hard with clear minds and determination but we also both knew that we could do it because we were both generally committed to find a practical solution for people and for all communities in Northern Ireland.”

Asked what the deal would mean for UK participation in Horizon Europe, she said it was “good news for scientists and researchers in the EU and in the UK”.

“The moment we have finished this agreement—so it’s an agreement in principle—the moment it is implemented I’m happy to start immediately right now the work on an association agreement which is the pre-condition to join Horizon Europe. So [it’s] good news for all those working in research and science.”

Her comments will likely be widely welcomed by the sector, but also mean the sector will have to wait for the deal to be approved by both sides and implemented before there is EU approval of the UK’s association to EU R&D programmes.

Details of the deal are yet to be published and Sunak has promised to give the House of Commons a vote on it.

Adrian Smith, president of the Royal Society,  welcomed von der Leyen’s “commitment to progressing association as soon as the Windsor Framework is implemented”.

“With the Northern Ireland protocol impasse resolved, we need to swiftly secure access to the EU’s international research programmes,” Smith said.

He added: “It is more than two years since the government agreed association to Horizon Europe, Euratom and Copernicus—two years of delays that have damaged science across Europe. These schemes support outstanding international collaboration, and the sooner we join them, the better for everyone.”

The post New UK-EU deal ‘good news’ for Horizon, says von der Leyen appeared first on Research Professional News.

Agreements across Africa, America, Asia and Europe will support open access, publisher says

Academic publishing company Springer Nature has announced a spate of deals it said will expand the global reach and international momentum of open access to research papers.  

The deals struck this year include several transformative agreements (contracts between institutions and publishers that shift the publishing model from a subscription towards open access), the company announced on 27 February.

“The latest transformative agreements are expected to further accelerate the global transition to open access by ensuring affiliated researchers benefit from the higher usage, reach and impact that open access has been proven to achieve, and that the high-quality research is reusable, shareable and discoverable to the world’s scholarly community immediately upon publication,” said Carrie Webster, vice-president of open access at Springer Nature.

The publisher said the deals include its first transformative agreement in southern Africa, with the South African National Library and Information Consortium, a transformative agreement with the Swiss Universities consortium and deals with organisations in the Czech Republic, Portugal and Slovenia.

Another deal announced was Springer Nature’s first open-access book agreement involving an Asian institution: the Universiti Brunei Darussalam.

The post Springer Nature trumpets spate of publishing deals appeared first on Research Professional News.

Call comes ahead of planned EU pharmaceutical strategy

Representatives of European drug companies have called on the EU to streamline its regulation of the sector, ahead of the European Commission’s much-anticipated proposal for a pharmaceutical strategy in the coming weeks.

“EU-level legislation should aim to simplify and streamline processes” around drug development and approval, authors including a regulatory strategy director at the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations wrote in a blog post published by Efpia on 23 February.

The authors said the revision of EU pharma regulation resulting from the Commission proposal provides “a chance to create a predictable, clear and consistent environment” for the drugs industry.

In recent months, Efpia representatives have repeatedly warned that the EU could push pharma R&D to other parts of the world if they introduce regulations that industry finds too burdensome.

“Complying with multiple layers of governance at EU and national level can add time and costs to the process” of drug development, the authors said in the blog post, which was based on a longer article published earlier this month in the journal Drug Discovery Today.

“There is a clear need for regulatory convergence between jurisdictions to avoid inefficiencies,” they stressed.

The post Drugs industry calls for streamlined EU regulation appeared first on Research Professional News.

Sector awaiting next steps after von der Leyen and Sunak agree on Northern Ireland protocol

A UK-EU deal on the Northern Ireland protocol reportedly reached today will elicit a “sigh of relief” from researchers, as it paves the way for the UK to associate to the bloc’s R&D schemes, a research policy expert has said.

Prime minister Rishi Sunak held a summit on 27 February with the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, at which they reached an agreement on the protocol.

The long-running spat over post-Brexit trade in Northern Ireland has been a major barrier to the UK joining the EU’s €95.5bn (£84.2bn) R&D programme, Horizon Europe, as well as the nuclear research initiative Euratom and the Earth-observation programme Copernicus.

With a deal to resolve the dispute, hopes have been raised across the R&D sector that the EU will now allow the UK to take part in the schemes.

“We welcome the meeting between Ursula von der Leyen and Prime Minister Sunak this afternoon,” said Diana Beech, chief executive of London Higher and a former adviser to three universities ministers. “We hope that this will finally unlock access for the UK to participate in Horizon Europe, giving our world-class universities and researchers the funding that they need to ensure that the UK remains a science superpower.”

She added that it is hoped this new Brexit deal will give research-performing organisations the “certainty and stability needed to continue powering the engine of UK innovation” and that the newly formed Department of Science, Innovation and Technology should now commit to “funding association to Horizon”.

But, speaking ahead of the official announcement today, some experts have also warned that hurdles remain.

“The long-awaited deal on the Northern Ireland protocol will be greeted with a sigh of relief by the research community, who remain strongly supportive of continued association to Horizon Europe,” said James Wilsdon, a professor of research policy at UCL.

“But we aren’t out of the woods yet. Three further hurdles will now need to be jumped.”

Sunak will firstly need to get the deal over the line without hardline Conservative Brexiters and Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party “sabotaging it”, Wilsdon said.

Secondly, there will need to be “fresh haggling” between London and Brussels on the costs of the UK’s association to EU programmes. “I’m sure [this] will be resolved but [it] could slow things down,” Wilsdon explained.

The final hurdle will be the time it will take to “undo all the damage of the past few years, as collaborative networks need to be rebuilt and repaired”, Wilsdon said.

“I would expect it to take two to three years for levels of UK participation to return to where we would want and expect them to be.”

Flexibility urged

Kurt Deketelaere, secretary-general of the League of European Research Universities, also said news of a deal raised hope for UK association to EU programmes, but warned that revisions to the earlier association deal might take some time.

The terms of the UK’s Horizon association were set out in a trade and cooperation agreement between the UK and EU signed in 2020, and would have to be updated.

“Let’s hope that revisions and updates of the earlier association deal can be kept to a minimum, and both sides act with flexibility and goodwill so that we can welcome all UK-based researchers as soon as possible back at full strength in EU-funded research proposals and projects,” Deketelaere said.

Martin Smith, head of policy at health research funder Wellcome, echoed this sentiment, saying he hoped for “swift progress” to finalise a Horizon agreement given the groundwork for UK association was laid in 2020.

“If a deal on the Northern Ireland protocol can be made to stick, it would remove the biggest political barrier to the UK joining Horizon Europe,” he said. “Unlocking easy research collaboration would be a great result for researchers and businesses across the UK and EU.”

Jan Palmowski, secretary-general of the Guild of European Research Intensive Universities, described the dispute around Northern Ireland as “the big stumbling block for the EU’s finalising the accession of the UK” and said that with this resolved “association must happen without delay.”

But he warned that further talks on the revised costs of the UK’s delayed association should be done swiftly to avoid further harm to the sector.

He said: “The UK has now asked to reconsider the agreement around the cost of participation as an associated country, but all sides must understand that too much time has been lost; if new technical issues are raised, these must be resolved urgently.”

UPDATED AFTER PUBLICATION—This story was updated after publication to reflect that a deal has now been announced.

The post EU-UK deal prompts ‘sigh of relief’ from researchers appeared first on Research Professional News.

Draft Council of EU text encourages linked-up fund planning to address auditor concerns

The Council of EU member state governments is set to call for better synchronisation of research and innovation funding across the bloc, in a move designed to address concerns raised by auditors in a report last year.

A draft Council position responding to the European Court of Auditors finding that there is room for improved synergies between the EU’s dedicated R&I programme and its regional funding, which also supports R&I, has now been agreed in principle and was published on 24 February.

In a revision from an earlier draft, the latest position “emphasises the need for better synchronisation of planning and implementation timelines” of the various EU programmes that fund R&I.

In this vein, it encourages EU member states and the European Commission to “include synergies in strategic planning, programming and implementation…to capitalise on the full potential of investments in Europe’s R&I sector”.

‘Insufficient’ coordination

By law, the Commission is required to ensure there are synergies between the R&I and regional programmes. The auditors found that, at present, “insufficient” coordination between the programmes “limits the impact” of their funding.

Like the earlier draft, the text set to be adopted by the Council also stresses the need for more data on funded projects to help inform authorities and researchers about what existing R&I activities could be bolstered by others.

It encourages the Commission and national authorities to collect and share such data, and asks the Commission to work on improving the interoperability of portals providing it.

Other revisions to the draft include a call for “wider use” of the Seal of Excellence, a quality label awarded to good project proposals that cannot be funded due to budget constraints, and an invitation for the Commission to “pay due attention” to “potential undesired impacts of synergies”.

In relation to undesired impacts, it says that the search for synergies should not affect how project proposals to the EU R&I programme are evaluated.

The post Council set to seek better synchronisation of EU R&D funds appeared first on Research Professional News.

Downgrading Forskningsrådet’s size could lead to a lack of expertise and representation, group body warns

Norway’s universities are opposing a planned reduction in the number of members of the board at the Forskningsrådet, the country’s research council.

Universities Norway (UHR), a council representing 32 universities and colleges, said it feared that a reduction of the board’s size could impact its scientific expertise and its diversity. In a letter to the Norwegian research ministry, the organisation’s leaders said there was ongoing concern over the board’s ability to fulfil its function in a smaller capacity.

“The board of the research council has an important function in ensuring representation and legitimacy in the sector,” said chair of the UHR Sunniva Whittaker and secretary-general Nina Sandberg. “It is central that the board has high-level scientific expertise, and preferably international participation of top researchers.”

Permanent reduction

Norway’s research ministry proposed in January to make permanent a temporary reduction of the number of board members to just five representatives. The entire board of the Forskningsrådet was fired in May 2022 by research minister Ola Borten Moe, after it emerged that the council was set to make losses worth nearly 2.9 billion Norwegian krone (£234 million) by the end of 2023.

In December, the Norwegian government had to rescue the council from bankruptcy with a one-off grant of NKr1.6bn.

As well as dissatisfaction with the board’s size, the UHR expressed concern over a proposal that the board be directly appointed by the Norwegian research ministry. At present, appointments are made formally by the King of Norway, according to recommendations issued jointly by the research ministry and the cabinet.

“The Forskningsrådet is a key player in the Norwegian research and innovation system, not only for distributing research funds, but also as a research policy adviser for the entire government college,” the UHR said. “Appointment of the council’s board through the King helps ensure cross-ministerial ownership of the council.”

Whittaker and Sandberg said that the discussion of the role and organisation of the Forskningsrådet should be delayed, so they can happen in conjunction with an upcoming parliamentary review on Norway’s entire research system.

After the removal of the previous board, Borton Moe said that “new competencies” were needed on the board to prevent any future budget issues. Norway’s former finance minister Kristin Halvorsen, who is the chair of the temporary board, said it could take until 2024 to balance the budget.

The Norwegian government voted in December to extend the mandate of the temporary board until 30 June.

Weaker expertise

Earlier this month, the rector of the university of Oslo, Svein Stølen, also voiced criticism about the Forskningsrådet reorganisation. Just like the UHR, the university believes fewer representatives will weaken the scientific expertise of the board.

“We believe the ministry intervenes unreasonably when it proposes to change the board’s size and composition, as well as to move the appointment of the board from the King in Council to the ministry,” Stølen wrote in a blog post on the university’s website. “A broadly composed board is better equipped to look after the council’s purpose and many-sided activities.”

He added that the appointment of the board by the ministry could weaken its independence.

“Since it was established in 1993, the Forskningsrådet has had an independent advisory role vis-à-vis the authorities in matters of research policy,” Stølen said. “The council should still have that.”

The post Universities oppose shrinking of research council board appeared first on Research Professional News.

Change of rules means 30 per cent of students could lose right to accommodation

The Karolinska Institutet, Sweden’s most prestigious medical research institute, has said that the end of a housing pilot could affect its ability to recruit international students.

Under the pilot, which started in 2010, Karolinska was one of nine universities offering accommodation to all students regardless of their status or origin. However, a change in rules announced in December by education minister Mats Persson means that only a few categories of students at the university will continue to benefit.

Traditionally, Sweden offers free accommodation to exchange students in a formal programme and visiting researchers. On 1 January, new legislation added fee-paying students, doctoral students and early-career researchers to those that are offered housing.

But for the universities in the pilot programme, which was ended as the new rules were announced, this actually means a reduction in the number of students qualifying for housing. This, the Karolinska Institutet said, could cause 30 per cent of its students to struggle with finding accommodation.

Internationalisation

In a statement announcing the changes, Persson said that the changes are hoped to attract more international scientific talent to Sweden. For most Swedish universities, they will increase the number of categories of students and researchers who can be offered accommodation.

“The lack of housing often becomes an obstacle to the internationalisation of higher education institutions and the mobility of researchers,” he said.

But students falling outside the categories, including bachelor, master’s and EU students, will not be offered accommodation automatically, the Karolinska Institutet said. This could affect one in three students on its premises, it said.

The university said that students who were affected should get in touch with their concerns, but should “look for other housing options”.

“In some cases, new criteria must be met,” said Petrus Jansson, the institute’s manager of housing. “Especially for those students who are EU/EEA citizens and not in a paid oprogramme or part of a mobility programme, such as Erasmus.”

However, the Karolinska Institutet added that students currently in a housing contract with the university were not affected by the changes, and could remain in their accommodation until their contract expired.

The post Karolinska Institutet warns of housing problems appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: Swedish development funding, a Danish research prize and international science in Finland

In depth: Norway’s universities are opposing a planned reduction in the number of members of the board at the Forskningsrådet, the country’s research council.

Full story: Universities oppose shrinking of research council board

 
Also this week from Research Professional News

Karolinska Institutet warns of housing problems—Change of rules means 30 per cent of students could lose right to accommodation

  
Here is the rest of the Nordic news this week…

Development council issues international strategy

Formas, the Swedish government research council for sustainable development, has decided on its international strategy for the years 2023–2027. The strategy states that both Swedish and international actors must be able to benefit from the knowledge emerging from developing countries. However, it urges Swedish collaborators to weigh carefully the risks and benefits of working with countries that are not democracies.

Danish princess awards Elite Research prize

Crown Princess Mary and the minister of education and research Christina Egelund presented the Elite Research Award to five young researchers on 20 February. Each winner receives a grant of 1 million Danish kroner (£118,000) for further research activities, plus a personal recognition award of DKr200,000. Among the winners was Per Borghammer, who demonstrated that clumps of Parkinson’s protein can be found in the intestines up to 20 years before the disease is diagnosed.

Academy of Finland co-funds international science

Last year, the three research councils of the Academy of Finland invested €14 million (£12m) in international research projects, a report has shown. The academy collaborated mostly with other national funding organisations, the EU and joint research council NordForsk. Most of the money was spent on thematic research programmes, where project teams are expected to be made up of researchers from at least two participating countries.

The post Nordic news roundup: 21-27 February appeared first on Research Professional News.

Bodies say complexity of EU R&D programme hampering quality of proposals and opportunities for outsiders

University groups have decried the complexity of the EU’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme, while calling for a raft of improvements to be made.

As part of a consultation launched by the European Commission in December, research organisations have been publishing wish lists of changes to Horizon Europe.

The Commission asked for views on how the programme has performed since its launch in 2021, the transition from its Horizon 2020 predecessor and priorities for its final years in 2025-27.

Publishing its submission on 23 February, the Coimbra Group, representing 41 European universities, said that the increased complexity of Horizon Europe compared with Horizon 2020 “has negatively affected the comprehensiveness” of the programme, due to overlapping call timeframes and deadlines.

Quality compromised?

The group said the calendar of funding calls has been “challenging for applicants” and that short deadlines have “prevented consortia from collating high-quality proposals”.

When Horizon Europe launched, the Commission said that financial administration of grants would be simplified, but the Coimbra Group said it was “very concerned” about how little progress has been made.

Other perceived issues highlighted by the group include a need for better feedback from proposal evaluators; a lack of transparency in the design of funding calls; deadlines that put researchers with caring responsibilities at a disadvantage; and a lack of integration of social sciences and humanities in Horizon Europe calls.

‘Profound simplification’ needed

The Young European Research Universities Network, representing 22 universities, also published its submission on 23 February.

Yerun said that, despite efforts by the Commission to clarify the functioning of Horizon Europe, it remains “extraordinarily complicated”.

“This creates a burden on both individual researchers and institutions, which must invest time, develop expertise and often assign personnel just to understand how to navigate the EU funding landscape,” the group said.

This results in a “striking disparity between insiders…and new or less well-resourced players”, Yerun added, while calling for “a wide-ranging and profound simplification” of future EU R&I programmes.

Too much politics

Yerun also warned against EU R&I funding being too closely tied to political priorities, flagging a “risk that policymaking ultimately frames or even directs the production of scientific analyses and evidence”.

As well as tying R&I funding to the EU’s sustainability and digitisation priorities, Horizon Europe has launched five R&I-linked ‘missions’ intended to increase the impact of researchers’ work on major social challenges.

Yerun said that “earmarking funding for policy-driven research should remain circumscribed” and should not be at the expense of blue-skies research.

The post Horizon Europe ‘too complicated’, say university groups appeared first on Research Professional News.

Use of funding mode will be trialled with European Research Council Advanced Grants

The European Research Council has decided to move ahead with piloting broader use of the lump-sum funding mode, Research Professional News can exclusively reveal.

Last week the ERC’s governing Scientific Council agreed to pilot use of the funding mode for Advanced Grants for senior researchers in 2024, the funder has confirmed.

With lump-sum funding, researchers are asked to provide more details in advance of their plans, but are not required to provide extensive receipts of expenditures.

The EU research and innovation programme, which the ERC is part of, has so far mainly used lump-sum funding for smaller projects. The European Commission wants to use the mode more broadly because it reduces the administrative burden of financial audits and leads to fewer mistakes in financial reporting.

But some in the research sector fear the move could lead researchers to be less ambitious with the aims of proposed projects, and worry that collaborative projects may be more conservative with their choice of partners to increase the prospects of meeting their milestones.

At present, the ERC uses the lump-sum funding mode only for its small Proof of Concept grants, worth €150,000 each. Advanced Grants are worth up to €3.5 million over five years.

The move by the Scientific Council follows a tentative decision it took in June to go ahead with the trial.

Back then, the funder said such a move would be “subject to a number of preconditions, including: safeguarding the autonomy of the principal investigator; and not requiring the provision of any milestones or deliverables”.

The post ERC decides to go ahead with lump-sum funding pilot appeared first on Research Professional News.

Academics now working abroad praise access to safe environments, resources and new opportunities

A year since Russia escalated its war against Ukraine with a full-scale invasion, Ukrainian researchers have expressed thanks for the support they have received from colleagues and institutions around Europe, which they say has allowed them to live and work safely, as well as expand their professional networks and knowledge.

“I am so grateful for the opportunity to carry on with my research,” says Stefaniia Demchuk, who was working as an assistant professor in the Department of Art History at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv a year ago, before being forced to flee with her son. She is now working as a research fellow at Masaryk University in the Czech Republic, which she has been using as a base to communicate about her work.

“Being there, in safety, made me wonder how should I both thank my host university and be useful to my country in my own, academic way,” she says. “I can say that working as hard as I can is the best way to deal emotionally and intellectually with all the challenges the war [has] brought to us.”

These were sentiments echoed by many of those who shared their accounts with Research Professional News, some of which have been published in more complete form.

Viktoriya Kulyk, a professor of economics who was based in Ukraine and also moved to the Czech Republic with her daughter, where she now works at the University of South Bohemia, says she is “very grateful to my colleagues at [the] university for their support. During this difficult time for me, I was able to be with my daughter in safety and continue working in my profession.”

Many of the displaced researchers welcomed the ability to access resources for their work, opportunities to build up collaborations and knowledge in a new environment, or simply to live in safety.

A secure environment

“There’s no place in Ukraine to hide from this aggression,” says Olha Pyroh, a professor of economics who was based at Lviv Polytechnic National University and is now carrying out research comparing the economies of Ukraine and Canada at L’Université de Sherbrooke in the latter country. “All territory of Ukraine is being bombed and shelled every single day.”

Olga Barvinok, a historian who was based at Uman University and is now at the German Historical Institute in Warsaw, says the welcome many Ukrainian researchers have received from abroad has been a huge help.

“We all found ourselves away from home with our children but the understanding of the situation by the host party, their sincere desire to help, has caused us to overcome many emotional, domestic, professional difficulties,” she says, while describing the support she herself has received as “invaluable”.

Olena Puhachova, a sociologist who fled Ukraine and is now working at the University of Romania, says she was “provided with all conditions for comfortable living, research and teaching activities” in her new base.

New networks

One thing many Ukrainian researchers are grateful for is the ability to build new networks. For Barvinok, who left Ukraine with her 15-year-old son, there are “opportunities to work in archives, as well as establish contacts between scientists, exchange experience [and] opinions, and form new research prospects”.

Kulyk also says she has benefited from new ties, as “The experience of working with Czech colleagues [has] enriched me as a professional and as a person.”

A day before the anniversary of the escalation, the EU announced support for 124 more Ukrainian researchers through its dedicated MSCA4Ukraine scheme. The European Commission said 111 postdoctoral researchers and 13 doctoral candidates would be supported to continue their work in 21 countries, with many moving to Germany, the Czech Republic, France, Spain and Belgium.

“The scheme will allow organisations to host these researchers for a period [of] between eight months and two years,” it said. “When conditions permit, the scheme will also enable selected researchers to re-establish themselves in Ukraine to help rebuild and safeguard the country’s research and innovation capacity.

“Available support will allow them to maintain links with their research and innovation communities, carry out research placements and develop new projects.”

Marking the anniversary of the escalation, the European Council of EU national leaders issued a joint statement pledging to continue supporting Ukraine “in political, economic, humanitarian, financial and military terms”. They said: “All Ukrainians deserve to live in peace and choose freely their own destiny.”

The post Ukrainian researchers give thanks for support on anniversary of war appeared first on Research Professional News.

How the NIH uses the US government’s billions to shape the world of biomedical research

The National Institutes of Health is in many ways in a league of its own as a public research funding agency. With a budget of $45.1 billion in 2022, it is the largest non-military government research spender in the United States and claims to be the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world.

Its history begins in 1887 and the establishment of the US Marine Hospital Service, which was originally tasked with checking passengers arriving at ports for disease. Since then, it has grown into a behemoth that has supported over 150 Nobel prizewinners, along the way becoming first the National Institute of Health in 1930 and then expanding to multiple institutes in 1948.

While the NIH conducts its own in-house research, more than 80 per cent of its funding is awarded externally, largely through competitive grants. These are channelled through 27 separate institutes and centres, covering all areas of medical research and public health.

Rising tide

Except for a moderate decline between 2012 and 2013, the NIH’s budget has steadily risen since the turn of the millennium and has increased more rapidly since around 2015. While external grants are awarded across a variety of categories—including career development fellowships, training awards and business R&D contracts—research project grants consistently account for between 50 and 60 per cent of the NIH budget.

However, the picture of inexorable rise looks somewhat different from the perspective of individual researchers who win grants. When inflation is taken into account, there has been little difference in the average size of research grants since 1998.

Big spenders

The NIH does not spread its spending evenly across its various centres. The five top-spending centres together account for over 50 per cent of spending in recent years. Those centres cover cancer; allergies and infectious diseases; heart, lung and blood; general medical sciences; and ageing.

At the other end of the scale, the institutes with the smallest research budgets are the National Library of Medicine, the National Institute of Nursing Research and the John E Fogarty International Center, which focuses on global health.

The majority of centres spend more than 95 per cent of their budgets on research project grants, but there are some exceptions. The National Institute of General Medical Sciences, for instance, spent nearly 7 per cent of its budget on research training grants in 2020, while the Office of the Director reserves around half of its budget for special awards.

Higher education focus

The NIH is a hugely important funder for the expansive US academic community, with medical schools around the country relying on it hugely. In line with this, higher education institutions win the largest share of NIH grants compared with independent research institutes, hospitals, non-profits and companies.

Higher education institutions won nearly three-quarters of research project grants in 2019, the last year for which data are available. They claimed an even higher proportion of career development fellowships and training grants.

Institutions attracting the most NIH funding are located in the research heartlands of the east and west coasts of the US. The north-east cities of Boston and New York—home to world-leading research institutes including Harvard and Columbia—came out top in geographical concentration of funding in 2020. But when it comes to individual institutions, Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins University top the leaderboard.

Most NIH awards go to US institutions, with those overseas winning less than 1 per cent of the total grant funding in 2020. Even so, non-US grant funding amounted to more than $290 million and over 600 grants were parcelled out to 66 countries. Top among these were South Africa, Canada, Australia, Germany and the UK.

Win or lose

Since 2016, success rates for research project grants at the NIH have been fairly static, at about 20 per cent, having fallen from nearer 30 per cent around 2000. When the NIH budget dropped between 2012 and 2013, success rates hit their lowest level—about 17 per cent—but they have since improved moderately.

The gap between men and women, in terms of the proportion of grants won, has shrunk considerably since the turn of the millennium. In 2000, men won around 75 per cent of research project grants and women took around 25 per cent, but in the past three years, men have won around 65 per cent of grants, with women taking around 35 per cent. Success rates, too, have improved, and have mostly been fairly even since around 2003, although it is notable that the success rate for women dropped further than that of men when the NIH budget was restricted in 2013.

In other areas, funding is much more even between genders. For instance, women were awarded at least 50 per cent of career development fellowships from 2016 through to 2020.

Diversity gap

When it comes to race and ethnicity, the NIH has made it clear it wants to see the proportion of non-white award-winners rise, but there has been only a small amount of movement in this area in recent years.

In 2016, the proportion of non-white  winners was 23 per cent, rising to 25 per cent in 2020.

Outside non-white winners, by far the largest proportion of grants are won by people of Asian origin: consistently around 20 per cent since 2016. In contrast, only around 2 per cent of research project grant winners have been Black or African American. Hispanic researchers have consistently made up 5 per cent of research project grant winners in recent years.

Looking forward

The NIH occupies a critical position at the centre of US research—and therefore, to a large extent, at the centre of world research. Even small shifts in how much it has to spend and what it chooses to spend it on can have huge consequences for entire disciplines, let alone individual researchers.

As well as a change in leadership, with former director Francis Collins stepping down in late 2021 after 22 years at the helm, another major change on the horizon is that the NIH will be housing the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, a new funder geared to deliver medical breakthroughs.

While lawmakers have set aside an extra $1bn for the agency, known as Arpa-H, in 2022, it remains to be seen whether its creation could put pressure on core NIH funding in the long term.

Originally published as part of Research Professional News’ Special Report: Research Funding’s Big Players in April 2022

The post Focus on NIH: The big beast appeared first on Research Professional News.

Universities and science academy say EU research programme needs greater backing and diversity

Horizon Europe, the EU’s research funding programme, must foster more diverse approaches and its budget should be doubled to ensure European competitiveness, according to a position paper from Dutch universities and science organisations.

In response to a European Commission consultation on the matter, the KNAW science academy, the NFU federation of university medical centres and the UNL association of Dutch universities published a position paper on 20 February setting out how to ensure that Horizon Europe will “make a real difference”.

The paper says that the Horizon Europe budget should be at least doubled and that it is essential for member states to meet the Lisbon target of spending 3 per cent of GDP on research and innovation.

In a special appendix to the report, the KNAW also emphasises the importance of swift association for Switzerland and the UK.

Five recommendations

The paper makes five main recommendations to the Commission:

• Invest in research and innovation as a strong strategic priority for Europe as a whole.
• Maintain excellence and impact as key principles throughout the spectrum of research and innovation.
• Unlock Europe’s rich and diverse potential through interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches.
• Prioritise well-functioning instruments and completing the European Research Area.
• Streamline and simplify processes and procedures.

The Dutch institutions say that Europe does not spend enough on research and innovation compared with China and the US, its strongest competitors.

In terms of where that spending should go, the paper says that Horizon Europe should focus on the “best and most impactful” research, and that funding should span the entire chain from basic research to applied innovation.

More money should be spent on proven programmes and funding streams, rather than new and untested initiatives such as the missions on climate change, cancer, oceans, smart cities and healthy soils, the paper says. It highlights the European Research Council as a prime candidate for more funding due to its track record of groundbreaking, internationally eminent research.

The challenges that Europe is facing are “multifaceted and highly complex”, requiring cooperation between disciplines, the paper adds. Horizon Europe should “foster interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches more than ever before”, and the social sciences and humanities must be better integrated throughout.

The report was published two days before similar recommendations on Horizon Europe were issued by several pan-European university groups, including the Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities and the European University Association. Those groups mirrored the Dutch calls to significantly increase funding for the first pillar of Horizon Europe, which covers the European Research Council and the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions schemes for basic research.

Cooperation uncertainty

The KNAW’s appendix calls on the European Commission to speed up association agreements with Switzerland and the UK to protect collaboration.

“The uncertainty surrounding cooperation with organisations in both countries has caused significant scientific damage, with consortia falling apart or collaborations falling through,” it says.

The KNAW also urges the Commission to reinforce funding instruments that address structural inequalities in pan-European research, in order to help less successful or less well-funded organisations gain access to Horizon Europe. However, the academy says that “research excellence” must remain the main criterion in funding decisions.

The post Double Horizon Europe’s budget, say Dutch institutions appeared first on Research Professional News.

Almost half of awards for established researchers went to women

The NWO, the Netherlands’ largest public research funder, has awarded grants to 18 male and 16 female applicants in the latest round of its Vici funding scheme for established researchers.

The total number of applications was 266. Women submitted just 37 per cent of grant applications but won nearly half of the 34 grants.

The grants are distributed across four domains: healthcare and medical sciences, technical and applied sciences, natural sciences, and social sciences and humanities. The winners, who will receive up to €1.5 million each, will use the money to follow an innovative line of research over the next five years, as well as to expand their research group.

Leaders

The Vici money is aimed at senior researchers who have demonstrated their ability to successfully develop their own laboratories and are on track to become leaders in their field, the NWO said.

One winner will investigate whether fiction contributes to citizenship and community building, while another will research the energy efficiency of the human brain and whether this can be applied to the processing of huge quantities of data.

Further projects look at the decision-making processes of robots and pain elimination after inflammation.

The Vici grants often lead to a permanent professorial position. The grants are part of a three-tier system modelled on the European Research Council, with Veni grants available to early career researchers and Vidi grants for those at the mid-career stage.

The post Dutch funder announces latest winners of €1.5m Vici awards appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: open science, digital twins and new members at the Society of Arts

In depth: Horizon Europe, the EU’s research funding programme, must foster more diverse approaches and its budget should be doubled to ensure European competitiveness, according to a position paper from Dutch universities and science organisations.

Full story: Double Horizon Europe’s budget, say Dutch institutions

Also this week from Research Professional News

Dutch funder announces latest winners of €1.5m Vici awards—Almost half of awards for established researchers went to women  

Here is the rest of the Dutch news this week…

Open Science Fund enters second round

The second round of the Open Science Fund will award €3 million to projects promoting open science practices, with a maximum of €50,000 available per project. The NWO, the Netherlands’ largest public research funder, said the funding aims to boost “recognition and appreciation” of open science by encouraging and rewarding researchers who have taken or want to take the lead in this movement, especially in fields where open science is not yet the norm.

Digital twins for physical ecosystems

A virtual research environment, or digital twin, that simulates changing physical ecosystems will receive €20 million from the NWO, the Netherlands’ largest public research funder. LTER-Life will use digital models to study the ecological makeup of the Wadden Sea and the Hoge Veluwe, both Dutch nature reserves. The money comes from a €140m funding pot paid out by the NWO to support large-scale scientific infrastructure in the Netherlands.

Six members join Society of Arts

The Society of Arts, a branch of the KNAW science academy, has appointed six new members who are leading artists from a variety of disciplines, including visual arts, theatre, dance and literature. They are choreographer Roni Haver, director and choreographer Guy Weizman, visual artist Iris Kensmil, author Marcel Möring, visual artist and director Felix de Rooy and actor Romana Vrede. The latest members will be officially welcomed on 23 March.

The post Netherlands news roundup: 18-24 February appeared first on Research Professional News.

Funding increased by 12.5 per cent as Spanish government bids to “rescue science from precariousness”

Spain has announced that it will increase funding for its centres and units of research excellence by 12.5 per cent on last year’s amount, bringing the total new allocation to €60.75 million.

The uplift is for centres in receipt of the Severo Ochoa excellence status or research units with the María de Maeztu excellence label. These awards recognise centres and units that “stand out for their relevance and impact at international level”.

Through an annual call for applications, research centres and units are awarded funding for four years and those with excellence status are given priority access to other research initiatives.

Announcing the funding uplift on 22 February, the government said it wanted to “rescue science from the historical precariousness it has suffered in our country”. It comes amid a wider push from the government to strengthen the Spanish research system, including by passing a wide-ranging bill to boost R&D careers in August.

The post Spain to increase funding for centres of research excellence appeared first on Research Professional News.

National Centre for Research and Development promises “full cooperation” with inspection

Poland’s National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR), a public research funder, has announced that it is being inspected by the country’s Central Anti-Corruption Bureau.

The NCBR did not say in its announcement on 22 February why the inspection was taking place, but the development follows previous announcements relating to a possible crime involving the centre.

On 15 February, the funder said that earlier in the month its then interim head Paweł Kuch had contacted the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Warsaw “about the possibility of a crime having been committed regarding potential irregularities in the process of selecting a project submitted under the Fast Track Digital Innovations competition”.

The Regional Prosecutor’s Office told Research Professional News that the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau had been entrusted with the case.

The NCBR said it would cooperate with the inspection and was unable to provide any further information. It declined to comment.

Update 24/2 – This article was updated with the information from the Regional Prosecutor’s Office

The post Polish research funder probed by anti-corruption bureau appeared first on Research Professional News.

Science Europe says research programme now focuses too much on economic impact and global competition

A group of European research funding and performing organisations has criticised what it describes as a shift in policies underpinning the EU’s research and innovation funding programmes.

In its input to a European Commission consultation on the €95.5 billion 2021-27 Horizon Europe programme and its predecessor Horizon 2020, Science Europe decried perceived changes to “the main objective” of the programmes “since the preparation of Horizon 2020”.

“A bigger focus was placed on a utilitarian purpose of scientific outputs for rapid (economic) impact. Additionally, political agendas became stronger drivers of research and innovation strategies,” the group complained.

To counter this, it called for “a stronger focus on the generation of knowledge for its own intrinsic value [through] instruments with a better balance between all forms of science, including both curiosity-driven and challenge-oriented research”.

In this, Science Europe echoed calls from various university groups for a better balance of funding in the programme.

In its consultation response, published on 22 February, the group also criticised what it said was a change in the approach to international collaboration.

“The openness that guided Horizon 2020 was replaced by a more competitive approach,” it said. “Moreover, two European countries, Switzerland and the UK, are no longer associated countries. This is greatly damaging for the European R&I community, existing collaborations and the expected impact of Horizon Europe.”

Budget focus

The input joined a plethora of feedback from research organisations responding to the consultation. Many submissions expressed concern about the budget being insufficient and too subject to political whims.

Science Europe said: “Recent actions to strengthen European technological sovereignty, such as the Chips Act, [have] caused major disturbances in the Horizon Europe budget [and] this has led to a difficult situation.”

In a similar vein, the EU-Life network of life sciences institutes said that for Horizon Europe, “a major caveat is its low budget comparative to what it aims to achieve”. It called on the EU to “stop increasing the scope of the R&I programme without ensuring that additional areas come with additional budgets”, and to safeguard the R&I budget “from annual reallocations to elsewhere”.

Neth-ER, a Dutch research office in Brussels, likewise demanded “a significantly higher, more stable budget to advance the EU’s scientific, political, economic and societal goals”.

In other inputs, the European Association of Innovation Consultants asked for the application process to be simplified and clarified, while the Cesaer group of science and technology universities called for better integration of the social sciences and humanities, alignment with participants’ usual accounting practices and caution over the broader rollout of the lump-sum funding model.

The post Funder group decries shifts in EU R&D policy appeared first on Research Professional News.

Velux Stiftung offers project grants in an eclectic range of subjects linked to daylight

Velux Stiftung is a grant-giving foundation that is perhaps less well known than it should be, especially by researchers in fields linked to light, vision and healthy ageing whose interdisciplinary ideas may not easily find favour with national funders. Ophthalmology researchers with ideas for projects in low- and middle-income countries should also be aware of this funder.

The 2023 round of the foundation’s Research Grants schemes is open now, with up to CHF100,000 (€101,000) for applicants to the daylight and healthy ageing stream, and up to CHF400,000 available in the ophthalmology stream. Projects in both can last for up to four years. The deadline for daylight and healthy ageing applicants is 30 April and for ophthalmology 7 May.

In April 2021, the foundation’s senior scientific officer Kirstin Kopp shone a light on these grant programmes.

Top tips

• Connecting different fields is strongly encouraged in bids, especially when this isn’t supported by other funders
• Velux Stiftung likes to see the transfer of results from previous research
• Grants applications in ophthalmology should focus on low- and middle-income countries

For researchers with ideas for projects a little different from the norm, Velux Stiftung might provide a welcome ray of light. The Swiss funder, founded by the inventor of Velux windows, awards grants on an annual basis for projects lasting up to four years. It specifically asks applicants to explain why their project is not eligible for funding by other sources.

Velux Stiftung awards grants in three specific areas: ophthalmology, daylight research and healthy ageing.

The funder recently held a strategic review that led to some important changes in its grants programme. Senior scientific officer Kirstin Kopp tells us more.

How long has Velux Stiftung had a research grants programme?

Velux Stiftung was founded in 1980 and it’s been giving out grants ever since. From the early 2000s it really took off. The Danish engineer Villum Kann Rasmussen had the idea that people needed to have more light and air within built environments. With his Velux roof windows, he made a fortune and founded several foundations.

Tell me a bit more about the three funding areas.

First, there is daylight research, as we call it, which brings together many different disciplines, including chronobiology, psychiatry and architecture—considering the built environments where we spend 90 per cent of our time—but also topics in daylight and nature as well as daylight technology. Second, there is healthy ageing, where we also try to focus on this interdisciplinary approach. The third area is ophthalmology.

Are you open to applications from any country?

We give out international grants but I should point out that as a charitable Swiss foundation, we are tax exempt and that requires us to spend 50 per cent of our money in Switzerland. So 50 per cent of our funding is open to international research grants. Broadly, we receive more applications from within Europe, but we have also been getting applications from overseas.

How many grants do you award each year and what are your success rates?

In the past five years, it’s been around 20, with an average success rate of 23 per cent. It does vary. In 2019, we had over 100 applications, so the funding rate was below 20 per cent, but usually it’s around 20 to 25 per cent.

Is there a total budget?

In the past couple of years we gave out around CHF7 million in total, but it depends on the financial markets.

Do you tend to fund more projects in any one of the three main areas?

No, it’s actually quite variable. When you look at our funding history, in some years there is more money going to healthy ageing and in other years there is more into daylight research. There is no fixed quota, and it’s not split into equal parts for the three different funding areas—it really depends where the best ideas come in.

Are all three areas distinct or do you like to see some crossover?

We are genuinely quite fond of interdisciplinary approaches. This might be within one of these areas but reaching out to another discipline which is not in our funding portfolio, but it also might be an interdisciplinary project at the intersection of the three areas we fund, and these projects are of particular interest.

You ask for applications not to be eligible for funding by other sources. How should applicants show this?

Not all national funding agencies have programmes for proof-of-concept studies, for example. So that’s something where you could demonstrate that you’re not eligible for funding. Another example would be interdisciplinary projects that fall between categories. And some funding agencies continuously fund a certain research stream but once you start to reach out and want to try something new or apply your work to a different field, it becomes more difficult to find funding.

Can people apply with proposals that have been turned down by their national funders?

Well, you need to be within our funding areas and your research question should be relevant but also neglected in that nobody else wants to fund it. And then scientific quality is important, of course. It’s not like if you have fallen through your national funding agency’s selection procedure then we will cover you—that’s not the case.

Could you give an example of a project that would be the right fit for Velux Stiftung?

It could be that you have a great idea and a great research partner, but this partner is in a country that is not supported by other funding sources. We’re also interested in how much applicants are invested in transferring research results. Obviously, if you’re doing basic research, the next level might not be developing a product, but you might want to go on and see who else is interested and who you could collaborate with. I think that this kind of transfer step is very important.

Velux Stiftung has recently had a strategic review—has this changed your funding priorities in any way?

When we did a bit of background research on where funding for ophthalmology went in general, we saw that there was a lot of funding for diseases that were common in high-income countries but that the majority of visual impairment was actually in low-income and middle-income countries and was due to diseases for which solutions existed. Often these solutions work well in high-income countries but are not adapted to the local situation in low-income and middle-income countries. As we are a rather small foundation, we wanted to know where we could make a difference, so the focus is now set on ophthalmology research in the context of low-income and middle-income countries where there is less funding available.

And are there any other changes to your funding programmes on the horizon?

As a sneak peek I can tell you that the foundation is actually looking at starting a funding programme in forestry and climate change. But we’re still at the very beginning and at the moment we are considering what we should focus on. We’re trying to set it up this year so by next year there should be some more details.

The post From the archive: Cross-cutting projects shine for Swiss funder appeared first on Research Professional News.

Pilot instrument for institutions set to launch in 2023-24, but member states express doubts

The European Commission has confirmed that it is planning to provide funding to improve the security of research careers and is “ready to pilot” an initiative in 2023-24.

A Commission official told Research Professional News that their institution is drawing up a roadmap for “establishing standards for attractive careers, tools to implement these standards throughout the European Research Area, and an investment pathway”.

But representatives of EU member states have raised concerns about the impact of the plans on the budget of Horizon Europe, the bloc’s research and innovation funding programme.

Pilot incoming

In January, Research Professional News reported that the Commission was considering giving significant funding to institutions that provide secure career paths for researchers, as part of efforts to fix deep-rooted problems in the sector.

The moves follow pressure from the research community to improve working conditions, particularly for early career researchers, for whom short-term contracts are the norm.

The funding mechanism proposed is a partnership—a tool used in Horizon Europe to combine EU funding with that of private or public partners.

The official said the Commission is “ready to pilot the partnership through Horizon Europe” in 2023-24 and that it would involve “member states and stakeholders who wish to participate”.

In January, Manuel Heitor, a former science minister in Portugal, told Research Professional News that he had been working with the Commission on plans for such a partnership, the aim of which would be to channel funding to research institutions with good practices on supporting research careers.

Heitor said the partnership would be piloted with a provisional budget of €10 million, with the goal of establishing a new programme with much greater funding in the successor to Horizon Europe, which will start in 2028.

Cautious reaction

Member states have expressed caution in their support for the plans.

The Commission confirmed that at a meeting of the European Research Area and Innovation Committee, a policy advice body, on 14 February, representatives of EU member state governments raised concerns over the impact of a new funding instrument on Horizon Europe.

Minutes from the meeting, seen by Research Professional News, say that member states requested further information on the aims and budget of the proposed partnership.

The plans are linked to a wider effort by the Commission to create a European framework for research careers, which includes measures to improve working conditions for researchers.

‘Time to act’

Research commissioner Mariya Gabriel has been urged to act quickly.

The Initiative for Science in Europe, a group of learned societies and research organisations that has helped to organise the pressure to improve research careers, wrote to Gabriel on 10 February to say that there is “an urgent need to act with concrete and reasonable initiatives”.

The Commission official said that Gabriel “welcomes the interest that this file is raising in the wider community” and that the community has seen it “is time to act in a coordinated way”.

The post Commission confirms funding for improving research careers appeared first on Research Professional News.

Researchers struggle to take advantage of initiative to boost participation in underdeveloped research countries

A new measure in the Horizon Europe programme to boost the performance of countries struggling to win money is failing to achieve its goals, research organisations have suggested.

‘Hop-on’ allows organisations from ‘widening’ countries that are underperforming in Horizon to join ongoing projects. Data on the new feature in the 2021-27 Horizon Europe R&D programme are limited, with just two rounds so far. But observers say projects receive too many queries and that coordinators often add groups they have worked with before, contrary to the purpose.

“The Hop-on instrument surely needs improvements,” Anna Vosečková, a national contact point at Technology Centre Prague in the Czech Republic, one of the widening countries, wrote in a recent position paper.

Some NCPs, who serve as advisers in EU member states, defended the tool and warned it may be too early to make judgments. Rui Munhá, NCP at Portugal’s government science funder FCT, said: “We are still facing the early stages of the funding scheme, so it is better to wait before we draw conclusions.” He added that coordinators receiving too many queries “is part of the process”.

But Vosečková and others have called for changes to address what they see as difficulties finding opportunities to join projects.

Potential joiners can find projects through a funding portal for abstracts and contact the project coordinator, who will sift potential partners and submit a formal application to add them.

Marta Oliveira, a project coordinator at the Institute of Science and Innovation in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering in Portugal, said some coordinators receive hundreds of emails about joining.

Her institute has found that it can only join projects with organisations it already has relationships with, she said. Extra information about what coordinators need might reduce queries and boost participation.

For now, perceived problems are expected to continue. Vosečková told Research Europe: “Of course the coordinators will pick established partners, as they can start work immediately without any supervision.”

She added that although the deadline for this year is not until the end of September and coordinators will have “lots of time to look for a newcomer”, she was “rather afraid they will not do it and [instead] choose an easy way to pick someone they already know”.

A spokesperson for Slovenia’s science ministry said it it observed issues with the “openness of eligible consortia to open up to widening partners” and that it believed the transparency of the scheme “should be increased”.

NCPs “discuss [Hop-on] quite often, since obviously it does not function as proposed”, said Jānis Ancāns of the Latvian Council of Science. “If this continues, we’re afraid the European Commission will reduce funding for it, which would be a real shame.”

This article also appeared in Research Europe

Update 23/2 – This article was updated with the comment from the Slovenian science ministry. 

The post Horizon’s ‘Hop-on’ scheme criticised appeared first on Research Professional News.

International cooperation and solidarity can give postwar reconstruction sound foundations, says Oksana Seumenicht

Earlier this month, more tragic news arrived from Kyiv: DNA tests confirmed that Bizhan Sharopov, a PhD neurobiologist at the Bogomoletz Intstitute of Physiology in Kyiv, had been killed. He is one of many researchers to die in the Russian Federation’s war against Ukraine. 

As the war rages into a second year, Russian rockets continue to destroy critical infrastructure. More than 2,500 educational institutions have been damaged and 437 razed to the ground, according to Ukraine’s Ministry of Education and Science. 

An online poll last October found that more than two-thirds of European researchers support sanctions on scientific relations with Russia. On the invasion’s first anniversary—and in the ninth year of Russian aggression—Ukrainian researchers are calling on the academic community to reassess the role of Russian science in supporting the war. 

This is not just an emotional stance. Freedom of speech, research, teaching and learning are severely compromised in Russia. The country ranks in the bottom 20-30 per cent of the Academic Freedom Index compiled by Friedrich-Alexander University in Erlangen, Germany, and the V-Dem institute. Cooperation with Russian institutions could pose a security threat and would violate academic values and freedoms. 

Ukrainian researchers and educators remain incredibly resilient and are convinced that science and research will be key to rebuilding their country after the war. International cooperation and solidarity in research and higher education are crucial to giving post-war reconstruction sound foundations to build upon. 

Access to education

One priority is to give Ukraine’s students education now, so that they can become the next generation of researchers. Encouraging examples range from the University of Würzburg’s bachelor programme for displaced mathematics students, taught in Ukrainian, to the partnership between the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and the Kyiv School of Economics. 

The German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) is in its second round of support for German-Ukrainian university partnerships. And the Ukraine Global Faculty, coordinated by the Ukrainian non-profit organisation K.FUND and supported by the country’s government, aims to provide Ukrainian students and professionals with online lectures.

Ukraine’s current generation of researchers also needs support and training. At the EU-level and nationally, there is a range of programmes aimed at displaced Ukrainian researchers. 

Preventing a brain drain means thinking now about how to help people return home once conditions are safe. The EU-funded MSCA4Ukraine fellowship programme aims to address this via secondments. Dedicated fellowships to support return and reintegration, similar to those offered by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation to fellows from certain countries, could be another useful option. 

Many researchers remain in Ukraine, creating an urgent need for non-residential support schemes, such as those offered by the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna or the British Association for Slavonic and East European Studies. Distance-learning programmes, such as the Executive Leadership Academy for Ukrainian University Leaders offered by the University of California, Berkeley, can fill the gap when no research is possible. 

Ukraine’s research and innovation ecosystem must also be strengthened. This could be done through long-term grants, such as those offered by Scientists and Engineers in Exile or Displaced, a programme run by the US National Academy of Sciences in collaboration with the Polish Academy of Sciences. The national research foundations of Ukraine and Switzerland have also agreed a joint funding call. 

Another inspiring initiative is the plan to establish an International Centre for Mathematics in Ukraine, spearheaded by four Fields Medal winners, including Ukraine-born Vladimir Drinfeld and Maryna Viazovska. Creating focused centres of excellence in cooperation with international partners, rather than trying to rebuild destroyed universities, could help Ukraine find its niche in the world of global science. 

A dedicated network group recently initiated by the Council of Young Scientists at Ukraine’s Ministry of Education and Science aims to build ties between Ukrainian scientists at home and abroad. Part of this will be a Ukrainian Science Diaspora online platform, under development in collaboration with the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.

A commitment to research integrity and academic freedom means continued support for Ukraine. Its science and innovation base must not just survive; it must become an integral part of global research, and serve as a motor for rebuilding Ukraine as an equal member of the European family. 

Oksana Seumenicht is programme director of MSCA4Ukraine at the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in Berlin and co-founder of the German-Ukrainian Academic Society and the Ukrainian Academic International Network. She writes in a personal capacity.

This article also appeared in Research Europe

The post Helping Ukraine recover means supporting its research now appeared first on Research Professional News.

Expert says Swedish presidency’s push to abolish article-processing charges shows concerns about controversial model

A proposal to make immediate open access to research papers “the default” without authors having to pay article-processing charges “reflects growing disquiet” in the EU about such fees, an expert has said.

The proposal came from the Swedish presidency of the Council of the EU member state governments in a draft set of conclusions that the governments will discuss—and probably amend—ahead of their planned adoption in the summer.

Research consultant Rob Johnson told Research Europe that the proposal put the “emphasis on ensuring quality and avoiding fees to authors, both of which reflect growing disquiet about the article publication charge”.

Published on 8 February, the draft proposed that “unrestricted open access should be the default mode in publishing, with no fees for authors”. 

On the same day, the Swedish presidency also said that other issues in scholarly publishing need to be dealt with too, such as some journals not having good enough processes for ensuring the papers they publish are of sufficient quality.

The widespread pay-to-publish model of open-access publishing relies on charging authors. Johnson says this “risks incentivising publishers to pursue quantity over quality while preventing researchers from underresourced countries or institutions from participating in the global scholarly discourse”.

But he also warned that the proposal could be “good news” for large publishers, while leaving small and learned society publishers “out in the cold” by leading to more ‘read and publish’ agreements—where research organisations pay the open-access publishing costs. Organisations often prioritise big publishers in seeking such deals.

Science Europe, which has research funder members, and Coalition S, a group of funders requiring immediate open access, both welcomed that the presidency’s proposal stressed “the importance of non-profit…publishing models that do not charge fees to authors”. The two have set out an action plan for ‘diamond’ open access with no fees for authors or readers.

But Coalition S warned: “Moving the burden of payment away from the author is, in our view, indeed a necessary but by no means sufficient condition for moving towards greater equity in academic publishing.”

The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers said that ensuring the quality of research papers requires investment and that publishing models “will need to allow for the necessary investments and resources required to ensure excellence”. 

This article also appeared in Research Europe

The post ‘Unease growing’ over pay to publish appeared first on Research Professional News.

Researchers from Ukraine reflect on 12 months of conflict and their hopes for the future

It has been one year since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. As the death toll mounted and the devastation reached appalling levels, researchers joined their fellow citizens in fleeing to other parts of Europe and across the world to try to continue their work. Others stayed behind to work in Ukraine or join the fighting.

The international research community has scrambled to support those who stayed in the country with grants, equipment and access to academic resources.
Researchers who left have been offered placements at universities and help with resettling.

There is no sign that the need for support will end any time soon.

Here four researchers from Ukraine reflect on the past 12 months, how their lives have changed and their hopes for the future.

Opportunity for change

Sergey Kolotilov is acting deputy director at the LV Pisarzhevsky Institute of Physical Chemistry in Kyiv

I was in Kyiv when the war began. Many people, including myself, were shocked. They couldn’t believe it was true. On that day, I woke up at about 5am. A student called me and said: “It’s begun.”

I was lying in bed and was listening for the sound of explosions—I think there was an attack on the Ukrainian military air base about 20 kilometres away from Kyiv to the south. Then, there were several hours of silence.

Despite this, at about 10am I went to the institute because it was a working day. Many people came to the institute that day. After the first day of the invasion, I lived in the institute for two and a half months, day and night.

There were about 10 people living in the institute. We observed the territory and looked for mines or bright colour indicators—we read that Russian agents put markings on the roofs or on the ground in bright paint to mark out buildings for attack. We repaired the windows, which were broken by explosions, and checked the passports of people who went down to our shelters.

My wife and children went to Budapest, Hungary, at the beginning of March. In the first weeks of the invasion we expected that there could be military action directly on the streets of Kyiv, but then we understood that the city escaped this danger. My family returned in the middle of June, and since then I have lived at home and I go to the institute every working day. Almost as usual.

It is my impression that the international scientific community has supported everybody who wanted to find a position outside Ukraine after 24 February. I don’t know anybody who looked for a position abroad and could not find one in a short period of time. Scientists who stayed in Ukraine, like myself, have also been supported. I got a lot of letters from researchers I know from France, Germany and the US. All these scientists asked what they could do for me.

After a year of war, it is very important to finish the conflict, but the changes needed in Ukraine are of no less importance. It would be one of the worst things to win in the war but leave the country as it was some years ago. We need to tackle our country’s efficiency of administration and its corruption, and get a feeling of freedom similar to the most advanced countries in the world.

I hope that the pressure of the EU and the US in the fight against corruption and in the implementation of reforms will give good results, after long years of hoping and waiting. It is important for us to join the EU, but it is even more important to get European laws working in Ukraine.

The hardest journey

Alona Klochko is professor of international relations and law faculty chair at Sumy National Agrarian University in Ukraine. She is now a research professor in the faculty of law at the University of Neuchâtel in Switzerland

In Ukraine, I built a fairly successful academic career over more than 15 years. I teach legal disciplines in English and supervise the scientific work of graduate students, and I have more than 120 works published in Ukrainian and English, including in highly rated publications. Before 24 February 2022, everything was good.

Our city, Sumy, was one of the first to feel the impact of the invasion as we are located about 30km from the border with Russia. The following weeks were more terrible than a nightmare.

When the ‘green corridor’ for evacuation opened in the Sumy region in March 2022, I made the decision to leave Ukraine and go to another country. After quickly gathering our documents, a laptop and some basic things, my nine-year-old daughter and I set off to nowhere. There was no plan at all.

I thought we could stay with friends and within two or three weeks, everything would be finished and we could return to normal life in Ukraine. First, we stayed for a few days with a colleague from Chernivtsi National University in a different part of Ukraine, then we stayed for a week in Romania. During that week, we agreed with distant relatives from Switzerland that we would stay with them.

It was probably one of the most difficult journeys of my life—to travel about 3,000km from Sumy, across the border into Romania and on to Switzerland, alone except for my daughter.

When we arrived in Switzerland, I decided to look for the nearest universities, out of curiosity. The nearest, at a distance of 40km, from our small Swiss village turned out to be the University of Neuchâtel. I found out that the university was helping students and scientists from Ukraine through the international Scholars at Risk programme, which supports at-risk academics.

After receiving my S status—which gives temporary protection in Switzerland—I was contracted to work for a year in the faculty of law of the University of Neuchâtel. I also continue to work with my students from Ukraine online.

I feel sincerely grateful to all of my colleagues at the University of Neuchâtel who helped me and other Ukrainian academics, which has contributed to the fact that Ukrainian researchers will be able to bring their experiences back to the Ukrainian educational and scientific environment in the future.

Polar challenges

Evgen Dykyi is director of the National Antarctic Scientific Center of Ukraine, and Olena Marushevska is the centre’s press secretary

Ukraine has a strong scientific interest in the polar regions, and we currently chair the international Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Through the National Antarctic Scientific Center of Ukraine, we have a research station in western Antarctica called the Vernadsky Research Base, which operates all year round.

Even there, the war has had an impact. Last February, our polar scientists in Ukraine had plane tickets booked to go out to the station and take over from the existing research team, who would then fly back home to Ukraine. But when the war broke out, Ukrainian air space was closed and they were unable to fly there. The centre had to quickly find ways to make sure the research continued and that the yearly staff rotation took place.

By early March, it had managed to gather some members of the team who had fled Ukraine to Poland, where the Polish Antarctic programme hosted them before they left for the Vernadsky Research Base. Our research vessel, an icebreaker called Noosfera, was also able to reach the station and bring supplies and help with the rotation.

For those who were returning to Ukraine, there was a hard choice: become a soldier or emigrate to continue their research. Some already knew that their research institutions’ buildings were ruined and they had nowhere to continue their scientific studies. Some joined the armed forces of Ukraine, exchanging a microscope for a rifle.

In this time of war, the National Antarctic Scientific Center of Ukraine lives in two parallel worlds. In one world, we need to think about climate change, the conservation of vulnerable Antarctic nature and our international obligations; in the other, we need to deal with the harsh realities of war. In October, a Russian ballistic rocket hit our office, which was partly destroyed. Luckily, nobody was hurt as the shelling happened in the early morning. Now all our staff have to work online, through the blackouts and sirens.

We are grateful to the international community for both its scientific and its military support. Together we are working towards a time where there can be peaceful science instead of war. 

Developing Ukrainian science

Larysa Zasiekina is professor of clinical psychology at Lesya Ukrainka Volyn National University and director of the Ukrainian Psychotrauma Center. She won a Researchers at Risk Fellowship through the British Academy and is currently a visiting scholar in the department of psychology at the University of Cambridge in the UK

My research field covers post-traumatic stress disorder, moral injury, continuous traumatic stress and cultural aspects of the memory of trauma. My focus is on the psychological intergenerational impact of genocide in Ukraine and eastern Europe, including studies of survivors of the Holocaust and the Holodomor (the artificial famine in the Soviet Union targeting ethnic Ukrainians) and their children.

This experience has been central to my current project—Exposure to Continuous Traumatic Stress and Its Consequences Among At-Risk Adolescents and Young Adults in Ukraine—which is being carried out at the University of Cambridge.

Since the war began, as a country we have strengthened our Ukrainian identity and our preparedness to fight for our independence and the freedom of Ukraine. Now, Ukrainians intentionally avoid everything aligned with Russia: language, history, culture and literature.

In the past 12 months, there has been excellent support for Ukrainian scholars in the international academic world, and many research centres have announced calls to support Ukrainian scholars. I came to the University of Cambridge through the Researchers at Risk Fellowship programme, which is run by the British Academy and the Council for At-Risk Academics.

Through this international support, Ukrainian scholars now have an unprecedented opportunity to be integrated into the global research arena and to develop the best international academic practices for Ukraine.

The war has definitely shaped my own research. In January 2022, I started coordinating my research on moral trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder in army veterans, which was funded by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. But after the invasion, we shifted our focus to active-duty soldiers, their families and displaced people within Ukraine who required immediate psychological support. Our research data indicate a high prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, depression and anxiety in civilians, who need urgent support through evidence-based interventions.

Russia aims to exhaust the Ukrainian people physically and morally; therefore, we are developing community resilience and trying to resist continuous traumatic stress. The Ukrainians are demonstrating incredible courage and strength. I believe that Ukraine will win the war in the next 12 months, and we will start rebuilding our country.

EU dreams

On the first anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen offered the country’s president Volodymyr Zelensky more support.

In a speech on 9 February, von der Leyen said that Ukraine, which wants to join the EU, was “advancing on its European path in an impressive manner”.

She stressed that accession to the union was “a merits-based process”, but she praised Ukraine’s ability to “deliver fast and with high quality—even as you fight an aggressor, even as you are at war”.

“I hear Ukrainian people so often speak about their hopes. They want their children to grow up in the EU,” she said. “Let us turn their Ukrainian dreams into reality, into the European way of life.”

This article also appeared in Research Europe

The post Ukraine Crisis: A year of war in Ukraine appeared first on Research Professional News.

Policies to counter nepotism influence evaluation processes and attitudes to reform, says John Whitfield

Last November, two Spanish science-policy researchers, Ismael Rafols and Jordi Molas-Gallart, drew attention to the fact that in Spain, university hiring and promotion decisions are signed off by government agencies at national or regional level. 

This system, they wrote, was “introduced in the 2000s to reduce nepotism” but has resulted in the agencies taking a “rigid and standardised” approach based on journal rankings. Universities, they argued, need more autonomy.   

Theirs is one of many such calls in Europe for researcher careers to be de-linked from sometimes crude metrics. 

At present, the likeliest vehicle for such reform is the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment. Coara’s agreement calls on signatories to “move away from inappropriate uses of metrics”, to “broaden recognition of the diverse practices, activities and careers in research”, and to allow for differences between disciplines, cultures and places. 

Since it was finalised last year, it has attracted signatures from organisations across Europe. But differences in how nations and institutions approach evaluation are not just an internal issue for research. They depend on society and history more broadly—particularly social norms and the rule of law. 

The historical rationale for Spain’s approach makes it all the more interesting that while Spain’s CSIC network of publicly funded laboratories and many universities have signed Coara, its main public funder, the State Research Agency (AEI), has not. 

Sources point to differences in opinion at different levels of the Spanish system, with the appetite for change declining the closer one gets to government.

Seeking clarity

A diversity of views across different bodies might lead to some welcome flexibility, but it might also create inconsistencies that could leave researchers unclear what is required of them. 

Asked why it had not signed Coara, the AEI pointed out that it has signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, which has similar goals to Coara, and that it no longer uses metrics such as journal impact factors or h-index to evaluate individuals. 

“The AEI is firmly committed to fighting against the undesired effects of the publish or perish philosophy,” it said. “However, as the country’s main funding agency, it sees a certain risk in committing to follow procedures that may be too distant from our reality in Spain and making commitments that could be detrimental to our science.”

So far, national funders in 15 EU member states, along with the UK, Switzerland and Norway, have signed Coara. One holdout is Italy, where policymakers have also sought to combat nepotism in academic appointments. The country has given metrics a relatively prominent role in its national evaluation and in the habilitation process needed to become a university professor. Its national funder, the Ministry of Universities and Research, did not respond to a request for comment. 

Policymakers’ engagement with research evaluation partly reflects the strength of a nations’ research system. Unsurprisingly, the EU national funders that have signed Coara are mostly from the member states with the highest R&D spending as a proportion of GDP. 

But there’s also a strikingly good match with a country’s position on the Corruption Perceptions Index published by Transparency International at the end of January. Most countries where national funders have signed Coara score well on the index. Only two such countries—Slovenia and the Czech Republic—have worse scores than the highest-ranked non-signatory, which is Spain.

Otherwise, nations without national funder signatories are arranged squarely below those with them in this proxy for corruption. This is not to point to some funders as suspect and others as exemplars. Italy’s network of public research institutes, the CNR, and its research-evaluation agency Anvur, have both signed Coara. 

The AEI’s stance shows that not signing does not show a lack of reflection or engagement, and Coara does not have a monopoly on the issue. But it does hint at potential complications that may loom larger, particularly if Coara becomes more global.

Qualitative judgment

The coalition wants assessment to be based “primarily on qualitative judgment”. But, as others have observed, in places where the qualities needed to get ahead in academia don’t necessarily include being good at research, researchers tend to be more pro-metrics, seeing measurements as preferable to nepotism and patronage.

Coara will need to be alive to such issues. It will also need to deal with policymakers who might be reluctant to let go of the reins of evaluation. 

John Whitfield is opinion editor at Research Europe

This article also appeared in Research Europe

The post Anti-corruption efforts shape how nations judge research appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: academic publishing, sexual harassment, university alliances and more

New Horizon

EU representatives have begun planning the bloc’s next research and innovation programme, which is scheduled to start in 2028. Austria’s science ministry said an ad hoc taskforce of the EU’s European Research Area and Innovation Committee “dedicated to elaborating early advice” on the programme met for the first time in February, agreeing “on an ambitious agenda for the coming months”. It will work with a high-level expert group, to be set up in the near future, to advise the Commission on the programme. Its findings are expected to be published next year.

Full story

Academic publishing

Coalition S, the group of research funders requiring immediate open access to papers reporting work that they have supported, is commissioning a study to explore a “fair” global pricing system for academic publishing. It said current dominant systems do not reflect geographical differences in purchasing power, while waivers for some researchers are perceived as “patronising and neocolonial”. The group is asking consultants to apply to carry out the study, for which it has budgeted up to €60,000. Applications are sought by 13 March, and the final report is expected by the end of October.

Full story 

University collaboration

The European University Association has opened a consultation on the future of collaboration among higher education institutions. Collaboration is being hit by ongoing crises and uncertainty from geopolitical, economic, social, environmental and technological change, the EUA said. Under the Universities and the Future of Europe project, it is planning workshops, interviews with academic experts and discussions with national rectors’ conferences to develop “concrete ideas” about what universities want from collaboration and what they need for it to take place. An online workshop is scheduled for 28 March and in-person workshops at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy, for 22-23 May. 

Full story

Picture of the week

Image: Airbus DS

This article also appeared in Research Europe

The post What’s going on in Europe: 10-23 February appeared first on Research Professional News.

Experts welcome Commission’s new engagement with China topics but warn of potential downsides

EU-based politics researchers have praised European Commission efforts to learn more about China with the launch of fellowships on relations between the powers, but they warn that the move could actually reduce academic cooperation. 

The fellowships will place academics in a Brussels-based service called Inspire, Debate, Engage and Accelerate Action, which will advise the Commission president. The aim is “to foster strategic cooperation with think tanks and universities…to tap into deep expertise on China”. 

Lasting 6 to 12 months, the paid fellowships will be for social science, environmental or digital topics involving China, with up to 15 offered in each period.

Nana de Graaff, a political scientist at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands, said this suggested the Commission, whose officials have described China as a “strategic competitor”, “is serious about upgrading its knowledge” of the country.

But she also warned: “There is a tendency towards Western-centric thinking in today’s policy advice and think tanks in Europe, and there may be a risk towards a similar bias in the composition of these fellowships.” Depending on who is selected, the result may be “that Europe distances itself even more from China, which then will not be beneficial for EU-China research collaboration”. 

Matthias Stepan, a political scientist at Ruhr University Bochum in Germany, said the fellowships addressed the EU’s “knowledge gap on China”, but he added: “Better-informed policies might result in the discontinuation of some cooperation projects, they might also help to identify new areas for mutually beneficial cooperation with China.”

This article also appeared in Research Europe

Update 23/2 – This article was updated to expand Stepan’s comments.

The post EU’s China fellowships ‘could hit research collaboration’ appeared first on Research Professional News.