Experts declare European Institute of Technology project unrealistic

Already criticised by scientists and greeted with scepticism by Member States, the EU Commission's European Institute of Technology (EIT) project has generated serious doubts among experts who consider it unrealistic.

In a report requested by the European Parliament, UNU-Merit independent experts - including United Nations University (UNU) academics and Maastricht University researchers - also said the proposals for financing the EIT were unreasonable. The experts assert that the concept of a decentralised institute is unfeasible because resources would be too dispersed.

Publicised early in 2006 as the European counterpart of the famous US Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the EIT was passionately advocated by Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, who hopes to see it established in 2008.

But the Commission had to return to the drawing board and scale down its ambitions in the face of reluctance of several governments to finance this new organisation. Moreover, the project has been heavily criticised by scientists, who denounced what they saw as 'more bureaucracy'.

At the end of last year, Member States half-heartedly agreed in principle with the project, while the European Parliament insisted last November that the EIT should not receive funds from the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Development (FPRD), designed to finance research projects for the period 2007-2013.

In the current project, the EIT - which is a virtual institute - relies on European research networks (the so-called 'Knowledge and Innovation Committees'), and its priorities are set by a Board of Management.

The experts note that the situation in terms of innovation is very uneven among EU Member States with a number of small countries and Germany performing as well as the US and Japan. Hence, they recommend an alternative model, called 'Cluster EIT', that would see ambitious regional units compete to create institutes of several hundred staff members around strong and dynamic units.

The UNU-Merit experts advocate setting up progressively some 20 EITs, with their own annual budget of up to Euro 70m for a staff of 300. Each EIT would specialise in domains identified by its Board of Management, comprising academics as well as representatives of industries.

Such institutes could collaborate with manufacturers, as is the case in the US. The report cites as an example the Cold Spring Harbor University in Long Island, near New York City, specialised in research on cancer and neurobiology.

Regarding the issue of the Institute's financial basis, the experts consider the Commission's proposal is not sustainable. The Commission plans a total budget (including public and private funds) of €2.4bn over the 2008-2013 period.

The report suggests the creation of a European innovation fund using part of the money that is left over year after year from the EU budget. One third of each EIT's financial backing would be granted by the EU, and the other two thirds would be allocated by regional or national organisations and private companies.

The report evaluates that the proposed European innovation fund could amount to €500m, dedicated to some 20 EITs.