Activities of Britta THOMSEN related to 2011/2043(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Seventh EU programme for research, technological development and demonstration (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the mid-term review of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union for research, technological development and demonstration activities PDF (252 KB) DOC (158 KB)
Amendments (24)
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas research in and development of better and more effective models, methodologies and tools for innovation and commercialization is needed and must be part the rest of FP7,
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the level of participation and excellence in project selection; regrets, however, that the success rate under this programme generally remains quite low and is a disincentive, particularly for SMEs; underlines that the length of the projects often prevents SMEs' involvement; recommends that SMEs are more actively involved in the process of exploiting the achieved results; recommends that in particular beneficiaries among SMEs are offered twice a year the possibility of easy access to funds directed towards innovation and technology-transfer activities;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that growth in financial and human resources, an ever-growing number of objectives and themes covered and diversification of instruments has reduced the capacity of FP7 to serve a specific headline European objective; underlines that the current cooperation programme is too narrow and the topics often too specific to address grand societal challenges; recommends that the next framework program provides for calls with a broader thematic scope;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Approves the strengthening of the ‘Cooperation’ chapter, which remains relevant given current scientific and technological challenges; stresses its role in developing RDI critical mass of a kind not achievable at national/regional level, thus demonstrating European added-value; recommends implementation of the ‘Future and Emerging Technologies’ scheme and extension of the use of ‘roadmaps’ to all thematic areas; asks for more flexibility in setting call themes and financial thresholds and ceilings, making a distinction between large and small projects; recommends to avoid too specific calls;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Proposes that research be accelerated in the sectors identified in the ‘Cooperation’ chapter of FP7: health, medicine (including clinical and preventive research) and medical technologies, food, biotechnology, ICT, nanosciences and nanotechnologies, materials, pollution, energy, environment (including climate change, woods and forests), ecotechnologies, CO2 capture, transport, socio-economic sciences and humanities, space and security; water research should also be a priority;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Regrets that research in education and teaching is not prioritised more since education and teaching is a central key to growth and competitiveness;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Regrets that the very specific and narrow calls in the Cooperation chapter on socio-economic sciences and humanities makes it very difficult to make new and innovation research in this area;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes, in the ‘Ideas’ chapter, promising results obtained by the European Research Council (ERC) and its role aimed at enhancing the visibility and attractiveness of European research bodies; stresses the need to make the ERC an independent legal entity with decision- making power, directly responsible for its own scientific strategy and administrative management, as well as the need to increase funding for the ERC; supports greater transparency in the process of the appointment of the Scientific Council and in the composition of the review panels;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Recommends that the ERC retains a strong support for individual excellent scientists; calls on the ERC to provide a possibility for support of team-based projects, always provided that such projects are formed through bottom-up processes, where excellence is the only criteria and to provide grants for proof-of- concept in order to allow for exploitation of obtained results, while the grants should only be available to former ERC grant holders; believes that the ERC should support the formation of international graduate schools in order to establish strong connections between excellent research communities within Europe;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Supports, within the framework of the ‘People’ chapter, the Marie Curie Actions, which are of great value to researchers in their career and secure individualised bottom-up research within a very broad range of topics; recommends that the Marie Curie program for mobility is continued and extended with further possibilities for mobility of PhD students;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Acknowledges that ‘Joint Technological Initiatives’ (JTIs) assist the competitiveness of European industry; regrets, however, the legal and administrative obstacles (legal personality, intellectual property, financial rules), the heterogeneous governance and legal structures between JTIs and also the high operating costs specific to start-up of JTIs; asks to be more closely involved in political control of these instruments;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Expresses reservations regarding more systematic use of overlymphasises the importance of open calls for proposals (bottom-up approach), preferring to maintainwhile acknowledging the importance of a balance between the two approaches (bottom-up and top- down), which meet specific needs;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Stresses that wider interdisciplinary perspectives will also be needed to tackle the growing societal challenges effectively; underlines that social sciences and humanities play a vital role in answering the grand challenges that the EU is facing;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Welcomes the results of FP7 in favour of SMEs, as regards both the 15% target set in the ‘Cooperation’ chapter and the ‘Eurostars’ programme; is of the opinion that better coordination between FP7 and the Structural Funds could facilitate the participation of under-represented Member States; acknowledges in this context, the difficulties for SMEs to match the thematic calls in FP7 and suggests countering this by issuing more non- thematic calls for SMEs;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Takes the view that the level of financing of FP7 must be maintained and recalls that investment in RDI is long-term investment and is key to achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy; stresses that universities cannot operate effectively in the short-term process of the political cycle or indeed business cycles which are also often too short; believes that scientific progress on grand challenges require medium to long-term commitment of funding instruments that support both fundamental research and collaboration with industry and other external partners;
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Is of the opinion that the Structural Funds are an important key in establishing research infrastructure in the Member States that are worst off in terms of research capacity;
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Is of the opinion that commercialisation should be included in the parameters of future calls for projects under FP7 in the field of innovation; of research results should be addressed, especially the lack of funding for proof- of-concept; in order to maintain the key criterion of excellence in future calls under FP7 such funding mechanisms for commercialisation should be established using CIP or Regional Funds in close coordination with FP7;
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Acknowledges that European Technology Platforms, ICT and PPPs contribute towards greater industry participation but stresses that also here administration should be simplified;
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Points out that the EU must support many different sources for innovation; recognizes the importance of ideas, suggestions and competencies of ordinary employees when it comes to innovation since several studies point to the fact that employee driven innovation is not only good for business but also for job satisfaction – and – if performed in the right way - something that may actually reduce stress; stresses that we need to go from a narrow focus on highly educated employees, scientific-, technical and managerial staff to a broader focus on shop floor workers, clerical workers, care workers, metal workers, first line supervisors etc;
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Is concerned by the excessive administrative burden of FP7; supports the proposal to review the Financial Regulation to simplify procedures; with reference to the proposed EU application portal, suggests inspiration from the equivalent U.S. model(www.grants.gov);
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Warmly welcomes the recommendations to shorten the timeframe for adjudication and, as a general rule, establish a moratorium on the creation of new instruments within the framework of FP7;
Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Recommends that the present unspent EU Structural funds and those for the period 2014-2020 be more strongly orientated towards innovation, science and research, both in terms of human resources, development and infrastructure; stresses that government expenditure on university based research and training (and higher education as a whole) should not be regarded as "consumption" of public resources, but as an "investment" in training, skills development and research and innovation activities;
Amendment 306 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 b (new)
Paragraph 30 b (new)
30b. Recommends that the level of funding for FP7 should at least be maintained in the coming Common Strategic Framework;