| From | denis-didier.rousseau@uni-bayreuth.de | Date | Thu, 12 May 2005 04:48:04 +0200 (MEST) |
|---|---|---|---|
| To | Eystein Jansen, imprint-partner@bjerknes.uib.no | ||
| Subject | [Fwd: RE: commission performance alpha 5] | ||
| Dear all IMPRINT colleagues, Being away from Europe, this was a very bad news that I got this morning listening about the rejection of IMPRINT. Eystein did a great job by being able to gather the European paleo community under a common umbrella and he desereves a lot of our consideration. Concerning now the review process, I have been involved several times in Brussels and I have been able to see the evolution of the evaluating panel session after session. I am not please with this evaluation and I already addressed my comments to Andre Berger. It is not normal that entering the room where you are supposed to meet the other "panelists" you would not know those who are supposed to be representative of your community, this is my first comment. Second, the way the referees are selected is somehow strange and involve a political issue which is very sensitive as I'm sure you will understand that a country fair representation is not enough in our field which better involves expertise. Third and last, having set a consortium of the leading Europe institutions and scientists, how can you expect appropriate expertise? I have been approached to join the evaluating panel but refused as being an IMPRINT member to respect some ethic. If, what I wish, we all didi that way, they one can sincerely expect the worst as I already experienced in a recent past. Forth, complaining to the commission is a waste of time as these administrative people, even if this is you right, will always provide you with arguments to justify the decision. I complain once to the director of the programme who just retun me that the referees of my proposal were relevant, what I know was not the case unfortunately. However I totally support the initiative to question the commission on the way the evaluations are performed, but also how the referees are selected. Fifth, you all are waiting for the reviews. I agree with Rainer that the comments that are provided are useless and in somehow offending the PIs. This is mostly due to the review process and this again must be changed. Furthermore what we receive is the consensus report which passed in the European officers hands to be cleaned of any agressive sentences or words, and must remain politically correct. So effectively these reports are useless. It would be interesting to get also the individual reports on which the consensus one has been established and would better show the real work of every referee, and we would be very surprised sometimes. Finaly to follow Thomas, Rainer and Eric, I would suggest to continue what has been launched with IMPRINT which is to my sense unique in gathering all the European paleo community under the same umbrella. May be the proposal was too broad, but this was following the commission's aim. The "Millenium" proposal benefited of several consecutive EU supports which apparently helped a lot. Their lobbying seem to have ben very efficient, not only in Brussels but in the journals and meetings. The Utrecht initiative was a good one which must stop today. We have the opportunity to gather regularly at least once during the EGU that we all are attending, why not using such opportunity to reinforce the initiative during such meeting? All the very best to all of you cheers denis -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- Betreff: RE: commission performance alpha 5 Von: "Polychronis Tzedakis" Datum: Mit, 11.05.2005, 17:25 An: "Rainer Zahn" "Thomas Stocker" "Atte Korhola" Dear all, First of all a big hand for Eystein and all those who put in so much time into this task. Very disheartening to hear the outcome. I have muych sympathy with what Rainer Zahn has said, especially on the Brussels front and the client relationships that are cultivated with EU officials. I think that in addition to a letter to the EU, I would suggest that perhaps an editorial in NAture or something similar, outlining the growing degree of scepticism amongst scientists regarding the transparency of the EU funding process might be in order. Chronis Tzedakis -----Original Message----- From: Rainer Zahn [mailto:rainer.zahn@uab.es] Sent: Wed 5/11/2005 2:47 PM To: Thomas Stocker; Atte Korhola Cc: Eystein.Jansen@geo.uib.no; Imprint-partner@bjerknes.uib.no; beatriz.balino@bjerknes.uib.no; atle.nesje@geo.uib.no; oyvind.lie@geo.uib.no; john.birks@bio.uib.no; Carin.Andersson@bjerknes.uib.no; trond.dokken@bjerknes.uib.no; ulysses.ninnemann@geo.uib.no; Astrid.Bardgard@fa.uib.no; richard.telford@bjerknes.uib.no Subject: commission performance alpha 5 dear Eystein, dear Imprint consortium, I am sure I will not make many friends with what follows below. Firstly, it surely is sad and disheartening to see our proposal going down. and there are many issues involved some of which have been named in the recent emails. But then there are those issues left that have not been named but which I consider relevant if we are to make progress on the EU FWP front. Some of these issues may and will touch a personal nerve here and there, but let's face some of the unpleasant realities much rather than sitting back and keeping going with business as usual, a business that soon may go out of existence. First, I am not convinced that Imprint was the best we could have done. On my side I was surprised to no small extent during our London meeting to see that those from the modeling community and other groups present obviously had no idea why our palaeo-component (a derivative of the planned ICON IP) was part of Imprint, and they were not overly favourable to listen and expand their views. So in a sense, even within our own consortium there was, perhaps still is a lack of insight and understanding as to what a palaeo-component is about and will have to offer. In the end I am now left with the impression that ICON would have stood a good chance to survive on its own. Second, as a member of the Imprint consortium I still find it difficult today to sort through this proposal and its various components, tasks, topics, milestones, deliverables etc. Which only tells me how ever so more difficult it must have been for outsiders i.e., reviewers to sift through the bits and pieces and comprehend what this is about. But I also feel that this has to do with the concept of IPs at large as it is not an easy task to compose an IP consortium of the dimension and wide range of expertise envisioned by the commission. The outcome of the whole process in my view confirms the notion that the concept of IPs has fundamentally (and to a large degree predictably) failed. This concept reflects a substantial lack of insight on the side of those who were, presumably still are involved in designing research policies in the commission about what science is about and how it works. Those parties should not be where they are, and they certainly should not be involved in setting up FWP7 This is what I have to say about our proposal. As for the Commission's performance it is not my impression they are living up to their own standards that they have set up for the quality of proposals requested. In particular the proposal evaluation process is ridiculous and lacks any degree of substance. For instance, the reviews that I did receive in response to my RTN proposal (submitted last year) are mediocre at best, meaningless and useless in detail, beyond anything I would consider expert insight, simply a waste of time and tax payers' money. They are an insult to anybody who did contribute to and put work and effort into that proposal. As for the Impront proposal we now are faced with the prospect that the only IP proposal, Millennium, that is competing with Imprint from the outset was received more favourably than our own proposal. With this I could live were it not for the fact that in Millennium everything is named as a strategy and work plan that we were being advised to not do. This speaks a language of its own and to me reflects a fundamental lack of enthusiasm, professionalism and competence with those who give advice and organize the evaluation process. Obviously, the vision set out by our programme manager(s) never made it to the reviewers who seemed to follow quite different guidelines, if any. Lastly, from what I can see around me, particularly in the Mediterranean club, it appears more important and beneficial to spend time in Brussels wiping door handles and leaving a professorial - directorial impression rather than composing upbeat cutting edge science proposals. It is ever so disheartening that within the FWP our success seems to depend more on who we know than the quality we present. Last time when programme managerial posts in the commission were reshuffled the primary concern around here was that "we now lose our contacts". This is wrong, a disgrace to our community. I have had a few conversations with colleagues who were partners in EU proposals, both successful ones and ones that were rejected. From these conversations I sense a growing degree of tiredness about EU science policy and more so, about the chaotic way proposals are being solicited and then turned down on grounds that so very obviously have nothing to do with the science presented. There is also the notion that within the commission climate and paleo-work has fallen from grace, for reasons not known to many. Which brings me back to the point that perhaps we do not have the right programme managers in place to fend our cause. I am prepared to write a firm letter to the commission, or to contribute to such letter, about the issues impinging on the poor performance of the commision. I rather do that before turning entirely into a full-grown Eurosceptic. Rainer Rainer Zahn, Professor de Recerca Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, ICREA i Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Institut de Ciencia i Tecnologia Ambientals Edifici Cn - Campus UAB E-08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola), Spain Phone: +34 - 93 581 4219 Fax: +34 - 93 581 3331 email: rainer.zahn@uab.es, rainer.zahn@icrea.es | |||