CORBIS
Prospective grant applicants were like "vultures circling around the European Union's money pots", joked one participant at the German launch event this January of the Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7). Hunger for funding was palpable during this meeting, which attracted some 1,600 researchers. That's hardly surprising: as national funding stagnates in most countries, more and more scientists are pinning their hopes on money from the European Union (EU).
The world's biggest research-funding programme is both a blessing and a curse, depending on one's viewpoint and experiences. Some scientists enthuse about the fruitfulness of EU-wide research collaboration, whereas others roll their eyes when thinking about tortuous application procedures and Byzantine project-management requirements.
The European Commission will, during the next seven years, channel research grants worth more than 
50 billion (US$65 billion) through FP7. As always, researchers are hoping that the bureaucracy involved will be less overwhelming this time around. And as always, the commission has promised that it will be. But when scientists at the launch, in Bonn, asked programme administrators what elements would get easier, the disappointing answer was: "Not many."
One of the biggest criticisms of the Sixth Framework Programme was its emphasis on collaborative projects carried out by consortia with participants from different countries. The size, scope and internal organization of projects can vary from field to field and from topic to topic. And each consortium must have at least three research organizations or individual scientists, each from a different member state or associated country. The grant reviewers are not free to decide whether there are enough participants from enough countries; these criteria are laid down in the rules.
OLDENBURG UNIV.
Wired: one of Volker Mellert's volunteers.
The overall guidelines for FP7 collaborative projects remain largely the same, despite these criticisms. The commission, for its part, is increasingly frustrated by scientists' complaints about the programme, which nonetheless is hugely over-subscribed. Success rates of grant applications in some areas of the previous framework programme, such as cancer research, were as low as 15% (see Nature 424, 605; 2003).
"We have somehow slipped into a scapegoat's role," says Richard Escritt, director of inter-institutional and legal matters for the framework programme. The widespread feeling that the commission won't specify precisely enough what it expects is unfounded, he says: detailed descriptions of criteria and guides for applicants are easily available. "The most important message is: keep it short!" he said at the launch. Applicants should strive for clarity when describing their ideas and make sure that proposals match the 'personality' and content of the programme. Unstructured and over-ambitious — hence implausible — ideas are unlikely to be accepted, another experienced evaluator said.
Deciphering the framework
EU-funded research does have clear socio-economic objectives. The foremost goal of the framework programmes is not to support curiosity-driven research, but to increase the EU's economic competitiveness and improve the living and working conditions of its almost 500 million citizens.
This special personality of the programmes has, in the past, deterred some of the best scientists in Europe. Many others struggle to understand the objectives and requirements, which they say have an annoying tendency to change from one programme to the next.
Like its predecessors, FP7 is divided into different categories, in this case headlined 'cooperation', 'ideas', 'people' and 'capacities'. These broad categories refer to the specific objectives of EU research policies, from funding of multinational research that is too intricate and costly to be carried out at national level, to the training and mobility of young researchers, to capacity building and support of research infrastructures. 'Ideas' refers to the new European Research Council (ERC), a quasi-autonomous agency that will fund basic, investigator-driven research.
But the core of FP7 is the 32-billion cooperation programme, which will support interdisciplinary research collaboration on ten themes. The largest are 'information and communication technologies', 'health' and 'transport'. For the first time in the framework's 25-year history, there is also a 623-million budget for social sciences, economic sciences and humanities. At the Bonn event, interest in this new area was so strong that an information workshop had to be repeated.
The first calls for proposals in all themes were issued in December. Sequencing the human 'meta-genome' — the genomes of bacteria living in and on the human body — is a typical large project in the health theme, for example. Leading European groups, from academy and industry, are expected to participate. But it will take months of grant writing and evaluation before contracts can be negotiated and the consortium can start work.
Grappling with grant proposals
Meanwhile, it has become a widespread practice to hire grant-writing experts to do the paperwork. Indeed, EU grant-writing for scientific and industrial customers has almost become a profession in itself.
There are good reasons for seeking expert advice. Experienced evaluators say that applications are often rejected because they don't meet formal requirements or aren't fully formed, and grand proposals are not described concisely. Many interesting ideas don't make the cut simply because grant proposals are being written too hastily, they say.
Even professional grant writers find it hard to penetrate the jungle of FP7 language and requirements. "The effort involved in writing EU proposals is enormous," says Martin Wyrwich, who specializes in writing grant applications. "One of the problems is that the programme is so damn political."
Managing the multimillion-euro consortia that have dominated the previous framework programme, and will form the core of FP7, can be a thankless job. Volker Mellert, a physicist at the University of Oldenburg in Germany, can tell a tale or two about what it means to be project coordinator. From 2001 to 2005 he was responsible for an EU project aimed at improving the comfort and well-being of aircraft passengers and crews. The consortium of acoustics experts, aircraft engineers and physicians studied the impact of noise, humidity and pressure conditions. Their findings are being used to improve passenger aircraft design. But Mellert would rather not do it again. "Project coordination is extremely time-consuming," he says.
R. HAAS
Daniel Funeriu believes that Europe's Marie Curie programme has proved worthwhile.
Some scientists show sympathy for the commission's standpoint. "Scientists are often too focused on their test-tubes," says a Germany-based scientist who doesn't want to be named. "But EU projects involve an awful lot of money. We do have to justify what we are doing with it, and of course there has to be tight project management." Big money naturally involves paperwork, accountability and public outreach, he adds.
Scientists are often too focused on their test-tubes. But EU projects involve an awful lot of money: there has to be tight project management.
Some of the scientists in Bonn were not only keen to learn about simplified applications procedures, but to find partners too. "If you don't carefully choose a good group you may end up with less grant money and more management work," says one cancer researcher.
Many participants complain that the projects have become too big to be efficiently managed, and that responsibility is spread among too many people. Some fear that the very size of the consortia and the large number of scientists involved creates the risk that some members could behave irresponsibly when it comes to administration, data exchange or publishing ethics.
But not everything about the framework is considered complex and unwieldy. The creation of the ERC has been applauded throughout Europe for its promise to support individual bottom-up research grants on the sole criterion of excellence. The Marie Curie Actions are lauded too, having helped countless young scientists gain experience outside their home countries, with little red tape. They have lifted a lot of bureaucracy, says Daniel Funeriu, a chemist at the Technical University of Munich.
"The initial experience was a bit tough," says Funeriu, who leads a Marie Curie excellence team. On arrival in Munich he spent several months on organizational issues, and the university had to create a new position, 'EU visiting scientist', as his salary and responsibilities didn't fit the profile of any existing position in the German science system. But the Curie programme alleviates many of the problems — such as work permits, insurance and low pay — that young visiting scientists in Europe tend to have in common, he says.
Marie Curie excellence grants are for research teams working on cutting-edge and interdisciplinary research in an EU state or associated country. Fellowships are much sought-after, with a success rate of around 10%.
Intellectual freedom
Funeriu now works with his ten-strong team on enzyme microassays, seeking novel enzyme inhibitors that could help treat diseases. The EU grant provides the intellectual freedom that young scientists need, he says. And the Technical University, like many other large universities in Europe, has set up a bureau that deals with special problems arising from EU grants.
But as success rates are likely to be frustratingly low in all FP7 programmes, including the ERC, applicants should be prepared for disappointment. One particularly unlucky scientist in Bonn talked with gallows humour about his enduring lack of funding success. Aware of his "well-proven project-killer qualities", he said that in future he would only agree to collaborations with colleagues he particularly dislikes.
It remains to be seen whether the newest framework will placate scientists, nurture research and untangle bureaucratic constraints more than previous efforts. The only certainty is that European scientists will still compete for part of the large pot of money — and complain about both the process and the results.