11 Amendments of Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO related to 2016/2147(INI)
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Confirms that ‘'excellence’' should remain the key criterion across the three pillars, while noting that it is only one of the three evaluation criteria, alongside ‘'impact’' and ‘'quality and efficiency of the implementation’'; calls for the reweighting of these criteria and invites the Commission to set out additional sub- criteria by adding ‘SSH integration and 'geographical balance’' under ‘'impact’' and ‘'project size’' under ‘'efficiency of the implementation’'; also invites the Commission to consider a separate objective for SSH integration at topic level;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Call on the Commission to better define ‘'impact’'; stresses that the assessment of the impact of fundamental research and SSH projects should remain flexible and its relative weight in the evaluation procedure should be decreased; asks the Commission to check that the balance between bottom- up and top-down calls is maintained and to analyse which procedure (one or two stage) is more useful to avoid oversubscription;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Insists that the Commission should adopt measures minimising the risk that the results of a research project could be misused or used malevolently;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that synergies between funds are crucial to make investments more effective; stresses that RIS3 are an important tool to catalyse synergies setting out national and regional frameworks for R&D&I investments and, as so, should be promoted and reinforced; regrets the presence of substantial barriers to making synergies fully operational19 [1]such as the State Aid rules; calls on the Commission to revise the State Aid rules and to allow R&D structural fund projects to be justifiable within the FP rules of procedure; _________________ 19Large research infrastructure fits within the scope and goals of the ERDF, but ERDF funds allocated nationally cannot be used to co-finance it; construction costs associated with new research infrastructures are eligible under the ERDF, but operational and staff costs are not.
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recognises the importance of incorporating research and entrepreneurship skills into Member States’' primary and high school education systems in order to encourage young people to develop these skills, as R&D should be viewed in structural rather than cyclical or temporal terms; calls on the Member States and the Commission to enhance employment stability for young researchers and to reject all forms of precarious working conditions under H2020 funded projects; calls on the Commission to provide new increased levels of support for young researchers, such as a new funding scheme for early-stage researchers with less than three years of experience after PhD completion;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls that SSH integration means SSH research in interdisciplinary projects and not an ex-post add-on to otherwise technological projects, and that the most pressing problems faced by the EU require methodological research that is more conceptually focused on SSH; calls on the Commission either to introduce a minimum percentage dedicated to SSH funding, or to create an evaluation sub- criterion that takes account of its inclusion in projecproper funding dedicated to SSH, Enhance efforts to integrate SSH at programme and topic level through truly interdisciplinary approaches clearly reflected throughout call texts;
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Welcomes initiatives which bring the private and public sectors together to stimulate research; rRegrets the low level of public return on public investment in some sensitive areas such as health; highlights the need for enhanced EU leadership in prioritising public research needs and a fair public return; calls on the Commission to study the possibilities of co-ownership of IP for key projects funded by FP public grants;
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Welcomes the Open Science pilot funding as a first step towards an Open Science Cloud; recognises the relevance of e-infrastructures and supercomputing, the need for public and private sector stakeholders and civil society to be involved and the importance of citizen science in ensuring that society plays a more active part in the definition of the problems; calls for a public scientific metadata structure and procedures for the generation of such data in order to feed the European OSC and ensure data exploitationopen access to data; calls on the Commission and the public and private research community to explore new models that integrate private cloud resources and public e- infrastructures and the launch of citizen agendas in science and innovation;
Amendment 323 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Underlines the need for new higher excellence centres and regions and the importance of continuing to develop the ERA, as well as the complementarity between ERA and European Higher Education Area, and to reinforce ERASMUS+ programme and the ERC; calls for policies to remove barriers such as lower salaries that are faced by Eastern and Southern countries in order to avoid brain drain, and for the excellence of the project to be prioritised over the excellence of ‘'elite’' centres;
Amendment 370 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Amendment 372 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 b (new)
Paragraph 33 b (new)
33b. Calls on the Commission to ensure that as regards the project evaluation procedures both ethical and technical, envisaged for the next FP9, need to be transparent and participatory as well as based on international law and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In addition external evaluators of the FP9 projects needs to be appointed independently not by the project participants but by an external body and in consultations with the European Parliament and civil society.