1 / 7

Break-out session: Group B

Break-out session: Group B. What do scientists want?. Scientists wants program that supports science in a good manner: Non-bureaucratic Transparent Predictable The money/funding of the EC, with the simplicity of the ESF. What is needed for good science?. Ideas Funding for projects

beryl
Télécharger la présentation

Break-out session: Group B

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Break-out session: Group B

  2. What do scientists want? • Scientists wants program that supports science in a good manner: • Non-bureaucratic • Transparent • Predictable • The money/funding of the EC, with the simplicity of the ESF

  3. What is needed for good science? • Ideas • Funding for projects • Strategy • Education • Networking • Equipment • Interdisciplinarity • Political influence

  4. What instruments are missing? • Many elements are there already (ERC, COST, Marie Curie, FP program actions, Erasmus Mundus) • Too bureaucratic and too little integration between funding mechanisms • Not a uniform window to the different funding mechanisms • Possibly too much network funding isolated from the funding of the research projects themselves • Possible funding mechanism too little exploited: European Graduate Schools

  5. How should the instruments be organized? • Current strategy toolbox is, from science topic point of view, adequate • What is missing is the seamless flow from one instrument to the other into a powerful strategy • Also missing is a tool for developing new successful funding mechanisms, as it has been an ESF trademark in the past (RNP, Eurocores, EURYI) • Important that active dialogue is maintained with European scientists (to remain the voice of scientists, not science administrators). • Can we maintain this role with little direct motivation to the individual scientist?

  6. What should be the tasks of the SCs? • Take the role of bridging between the commission and the scientists • Streamline a process of bringing forth important topics for European science and funding mechanisms for top-level science: • Organize EW to identify important topics • Invite experts to do foresights (maybe in the form of a time-limited expert committee) • Evaluate the outcome of the FW, prioritize and make strategies for implementation • Maintain conferences and network activities where needed • “Visions only become reality through research programs” • Destill national science strategies and goals into European research agendas (MO fora?)

  7. A final food for thought from the discussion • If learned societies are not members of Science Europe, how do we maintain that Science Europe remain the voice of European scientists, and that Allea does not take this role?

More Related