Ready for the future? The research train to the next decade leaves soon

The very large Funding Program of the European Union (EU) named HORIZON2020 was just released in December. Every researcher in Europe was waiting for it – much like for the starting shot of the Olympic 100 m final or more like the Olympic marathon, as it is valid for the next coming years and shall, as the name indicates, take us into the next decade.

What I like about EU’s approach is that they plan it holistically – as a large package with topical focal points which break down further to typically two to five projects. Each focal point has a long, yet always precise description about its desired contents, directions, ambitions, and impacts. Each project call has the same format – typically given on one page. The EU likes to use keywords and to precisely identify and name required content, sometimes even naming explicitly unwanted content. Experts in the EU project business are quickly able to make their “Fourier transformation” of such encrypted information into a project proposal with a core theme, partners, and interactions within work packages. Only those able to do this will prove successful. The EU does not like too much creativity in the interpretation of its crystal-clear texts and the scientist’s typical nonchalance in misunderstanding what should not be misunderstood.

I like the EU taking responsibility. They say very clearly what they want and do not want, and why they want it. I have alway admired those who take responsibility and lead from the front. Action is better than reaction and strangely never heard any complaints about the contents of the programs and calls. At least, not so much as one would notice. I have never heard, for example, the obvious simple-minded accusation that the programs only reflect German, French, or UK wishes and needs. To the best of my knowledge the European dimension of the research has never been questioned. In many other issues of European politics and life there are weighty debates and huge protests. Sometimes people and interest groups are dissatisfied and single interests clash with common interests. Not so with scientists who seem at least in this sense to be “good people”. They like consensus rather than controversy.

I also like the EU’s targetting funding. Many fundamental scientists react to scientific objective commitment like a vampire who is exposed to the sun. Others are cleverer, they commit, albeit half-heartedly, as it is the necessary thing to do in order to get the much needed funding. All these will get or have already received a lesson from the EU. Researchers are confronted with the societal dimension of their works, as they consume public money. The simple question “what is it good for?” cannot simply be answered anymore with endless, hardly understandable text. The EU has the persistency to ask for verification that the requirements will be delivered. This can be seen as bureaucracy; yet then the spirit of such documentation is still misunderstood. In summary, the ambition and dreams of the researcher are transformed into the business needs of its partnered company and society needs of EU.

There are many other aspects of EU funding which I admire but cannot be covered here. There is also much to criticize – yet this essay-type approach of this Editorial is not meant for a serious analysis rather I would like to mention one final thing that I like. EU programs truly force collaboration. It begins with the regular project meetings (“General Assemblies”) which are held every 6 months. There are also technical meetings involving members of the project team. Those who do not perform are quickly identified; also those who go their own way apart from the project plan. The many meetings and teleconferences bring us together, whether we like it or not. Everyone working in an EU project appreciates the charm of the pleasant meeting places all over Europe. The different traditions, cultures, climates, eating customs … I have learnt to love Europe, its places and people in this way. It strengthened my identification with Europe. It has enabled me to understand my own research difficulties, but also those in my own country and allows me to see those encountered by my colleagues. I am suddenly happier now that I recognize that my own situation is not so bad. EU projects have shown me the bigger picture. Maybe this is something which is needed in a small continent with so small countries, to have belief in a bigger idea.

Again, I know there are serious problems in Europe and all is not just not rosy. I would just like to reiterate that this Editorial is very much a personal persceptive, allowing single-spotted view and figurative language. The world has enough forums for critical and negative thoughts.

Green Processing and Synthesis looks forward to the innovation and research of the coming years which is made possible by HORIZON2020 of EU and other similar research programs in the world. I look forward to the next big ideas which will present as interesting, cutting-edge publications.