The UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee has released the results of an investigation into the value the United Kingdom gains from the EuropeanCommission's research Framework Programmes. These are the main source of centralized European Union funding for research.

The UK will supply €2.5 billion of the €17.5 billion budget for the current Sixth Framework Programme (FP6). There have been concerns about whether this is money well spent.

The committee's report, entitled "UK Science and Europe: Value for money?" reaches generally favorable conclusions. It says: "As an instrument facilitating cooperation between scientists and researchers across Europe, the Framework Programmes work." The report does, however, offer some criticisms and recommendations for improvement. It says the current Framework Programme "is far too bureaucratic: there are serious time delays between submission of proposals, issuing of contracts and payment of funding… The application process [is] difficult, and the lack of feedback on failed applications [is] a disincentive."

There are requests for more openness and transparency in the commission's decision-making process. There is also a plea that "more resources should be earmarked for basic research, with project lifecycles spanning up to ten years for large scale, curiosity led initiatives."

In an interview with the commission's news service, Ian Gibson, the chairman of the committee, said, "If the system was improved, the committee would support increases in funding for the Framework Programmes from member states because of its beneficial effect on international cooperation."

Some of the strongest recommendations are actually directed at the UK government. The government is urged to make more effort to encourage and support scientists and small- and medium-sized enterprises to participate in the Framework Programmes.

One point of contention is that EU funds cover only a portion of project costs, and the government does not assist in covering the rest. The report says, "The UK government's refusal to contribute to the indirect costs associated with participating in the Framework Programmes compromises the already delicate finances of our universities and therefore the participation of our best researchers."

Gerry Gilmore of Cambridge University, one of the scientists who gave evidence to the committee, told The Scientist he would like to see "more UK-based support for those scientists who do win EU funding. At present, there is not only no UK support, but much of our 'success' is taxed."

When asked if the United Kingdom does get value for its money, Gilmore gave two levels of response: "In a crude, simplistic, book-keeping sense, one could ask if the UK gets back roughly its juste retour. We certainly do. In a more sophisticated sense, one should ask, 'does the UK get value for its investment?' Here, the answer is even more positive, as the UK has a leadership role in many projects and is perceived as a dynamic and desirable partner, getting direct 'cash return,' but more importantly achieving leadership and positive partnership roles across the EU."

A French parliamentary committee is currently preparing a similar report on the French experience of European research policy. The UK report notes that the French findings may be more critical because "the French government is generally sceptical of the commission's competence and management ability."