munich

The European Commission should redesign the proposed research advisory system for its fifth Framework programme, which begins next year, according to the panel that previously advised it on research.

In its last piece of advice, the now defunct European Science and Technology Assembly (ESTA) said the new structure could lead to inefficient coordination of academic and industrial inputs, and confusion about the roles of its committees. In particular, ESTA objects to a plan to split industrialists and academics into separate advisory panels.

In June, the commission said it would set up a structure comprising 17 external advisory groups to oversee the Framework programme's ‘key actions’, and a two-chamber body to advise on general European Union research policy (see Nature 393, 502; 1998). One chamber will represent academics, the other the industrial community. The chambers will each have 25 members.

Members of ESTA, which comprised both academic and industrial researchers, were taken aback by the announcement, as they had been appointed only a few months earlier for a three-year period. Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia resigned in protest.

Last month, other members were further offended to learn that ESTA was to be dissolved immediately, before the new structure has been put in place.

ESTA has given its full backing to the external advisory groups. But it believes the move to create separate chambers for academics and industrialists is retrograde, and will discourage coordination, particularly as the fifth Framework programme is designed to promote economically and socially relevant research.

It is also concerned that all 17 chairs of the external advisory groups will be members of the chambers, believing this could distract discussions from longer term perspectives by introducing more immediate operational concerns.

ESTA is asking for the two chambers to be merged as soon as possible, and for chairs of external advisory groups to be excluded from automatic membership of the combined chamber.