Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
D.1.3 - Input Paper Funding Mechanisms
Working Group (Updated version, July 2017)
Grant Agreement number: 687780
Project acronym: DISCOVERY
Funding Scheme: Coordination and Support Action
Due date: 1 January 2017
Actual date: 23/05/2017
Revised Version: 27/07/2017
Document Author/s: WIT, NordForsk, with input from Funding Mechanisms Working
Group members, National Science Foundation, DLR and the Swedish Research
Council.
Version: 2.0
Dissemination level: PU
Status: Final
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This project has received funding from the European
Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 687780
Copyright © DISCOVERY Consortium 2016 – 2017
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 2 of 44
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 4
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 6
1.1 Methodology and Structure ............................................................................................... 6
1.2 The Target Audience ......................................................................................................... 7
2. CURRENT COLLABORATIVE R&I FUNDING APPROACHES ......................................... 8
2.1 Joint Call ............................................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Aligned calls (or aligned investments) ............................................................................... 9
2.3 Integrating Activities. ......................................................................................................... 9
2.4 Public Private Partnerships ............................................................................................. 10
3. COLLABORATIVE FUNDING SCHEMES IN EUROPE, US AND CANADA ................... 12
3.1 EU Level Schemes .......................................................................................................... 12
3.2 EU, US and Canadian Schemes ..................................................................................... 12
3.3 Funding EU-North America R&I collaboration ................................................................. 16
4. RESEARCH FUNDING INITIATIVES: SNAPSHOT (EU, US & CANADA) ...................... 18
4.1 US FUNDING BODIES ................................................................................................... 18
4.2 CANADIAN FUNDING BODIES ...................................................................................... 19
4.3 EUROPEAN (NATIONAL LEVEL) FUNDING BODIES .................................................. 20
5. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS EU, US AND CANADIAN FUNDING MECHANISMS (RELATING TO ICT AND EHEALTH) .............................................................. 23
5.1 View of ICT Elements across EU, US and Canada ........................................................ 25
6. SAMPLE FUNDING MECHANISMS SUPPORTING CYBERSECURITY – DEEPER DIVE 28
7. BILATERAL/TRILATERAL FUNDING MECHANISMS - A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF KEY FEATURES ................................................................................................................... 30
7.1 Example use cases ......................................................................................................... 30
7.2 Bilateral/Trilateral Cross comparison .............................................................................. 33
8. FUNDING MECHANISMS – USER CENTRIC SCENARIO .............................................. 35
8.1 Scenario 1 – Annabel the Researcher ............................................................................ 35
8.2 Scenario 2 - Annabel the Entrepreneur ........................................................................... 36
8.3 International Collaboration Identification and Initiation Guidance Checklist ................... 38
9. FP9 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 40
10. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 42
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. 44
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 3 of 44
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Interested Stakeholders: Funding Mechanism Input paper ................................... 7 Table 2 H2020 work programme topics encouraging EU-US Cooperation .......................... 13 Table 3 H2020 work programme topics encouraging Canada Cooperation ........................ 14 Table 4 List of EU-US Cooperation ............................................................................... 15 Table 5 Snapshot US Funding agencies ........................................................................ 18 Table 6 Snapshot Canadian Funding Agencies .............................................................. 19 Table 7 Snapshot EU Funding agencies ........................................................................ 20 Table 8 ICT Funding Mechanism Snapshot EU, US and Canada ...................................... 24 Table 9 eHealth Funding Mechanism Snapshot EU, US and Canada................................. 26 Table 10 Use case comparison table ........................................................................... 33 Table 11 Collaboration initiation checklist .................................................................... 38
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Funding Mechanisms Structure and Methodology ............................................... 7 Figure 2 Summary Joint Call Types ............................................................................... 9 Figure 3 Public Private Partnership Overview ................................................................ 11 Figure 4 ICT and eHealth sample funding mechanism Groups (EU, US and Canada) ......... 23 Figure 5 ICT Scope expanded to show topics for US, EU and Canada ............................... 25 Figure 6 Sample Security focused funding mechanisms .................................................. 28 Figure 7 Sample Cybersecurity Hot Topics Research areas ............................................ 29
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 4 of 44
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Input Paper on Funding Mechanisms provides an overview of current
international collaborative research and innovation (R&I) funding mechanisms (e.g.
joint calls, aligned calls, and integrated activities); in addition, the input paper
highlights a potential twinning process and practices and example activities of
relevant initiatives (e.g. joint workshops, publications, visits etc.).
The paper examines the various collaborative funding schemes employed in
Europe, US and Canada with supporting tables highlighting the funding bodies. In
order to gain a deeper insight into a sample of the funding mechanisms, the
following comparative analysis was completed:
1. Overview comparative analysis of funding mechanisms in the EU, US and
Canada for the ICT and eHealth domains in particular. This analysis provides an
insight into the funding sponsor, focus areas, organisational structures, grants
types, and involvement of foreign institutions / organisations.
2. A deeper dive into sample funding mechanisms funding cybersecurity research
(EU,US, Canada) and relevant guidance for researchers and some proposed
project ideas coming from the DISCOVERY Cybersecurity working group.
3. A sample selection of use cases of existing bilateral / trilateral funding
mechanism / initiatives between EU - Brazil, China – Netherlands - UK and
Ireland - Northern Ireland – US are examined, with a cross comparison table
and analysis output.
Adopting a user centric scenario, the paper provides an insight for end users on
the process of identification of research contacts based on their discipline, finding a
call and funding contacts/events. To demonstrate this user centric approach 2
scenarios 1) Annabel the Researcher, and 2) Annabel the Entrepreneur are detailed
along with a step by step guide toward International Collaboration (INCO)
identification and initiation guidance checklist.
FP9 recommendations to learn from H2020 experiences are relevant and important
to consider. Sample recommendations include
➢ When moving from H2020 to FP9 it would be deemed beneficial to have FP9
calls refer to current or future programs active in counterpart agencies (US or
Canada) as part of the actual call text, with the option to include an element to
the call text that states that proposals that include collaboration with
researchers working on these US or Canadian programs may be given extra
weight during evaluation phase.
➢ For more effective coordination between funding agencies in order to increase
international cooperation in FP9, the option of bringing together funding bodies
leaders for group discussion on funding priorities, to get a common view of
focus areas and open the forum for discussion around the potential for more of
a collaborative coordinated approach. For example the ERA-NETs might be an
initial good way to bring together such funding agencies in a flexible manner.
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 5 of 44
Key recommendations highlighted in this paper are broken into programme
specific, enhanced collaboration and common prioritised thematic focused
recommendations. A sample of the recommendations include:
Programme Specific Recommendations
• Funding mechanisms for transatlantic collaboration should leverage common
views/priorities: sharing ideas between continents, interoperability,
accessibility, transparency, collaboration and stability. This requires a
significant amount of discussions between the parties before the agreement is
signed, where complementary areas of research and mutually beneficial joint
interests have been identified, in order that the resulting frameworks will
prove valuable and maximum impact. Without this advanced discussion on
defining goals and identifying areas where the added value is clear to support
excellent research, there is a significant risk to limited success and/or random
outcomes.
• The time duration of the international agreements is very important and
should be carefully analysed and agreed beforehand by the parties. Otherwise,
they may not run for enough time to make any impact or become sustainable
with established collaborations persisting after the funding has expired.
Funding mechanisms for transatlantic collaboration should leverage common
views/priorities: sharing ideas between continents, interoperability,
accessibility, transparency, collaboration and stability.
Enhanced Collaboration Recommendations
• Funding Agencies should facilitate transatlantic ICT R&I collaboration in areas
of added value, for instance, excellence, pooling of competence, and
disruptive technologies. Joint calls, common rules, evaluation criteria and
eligibility criteria represent important approaches to reinforce transatlantic
collaboration;
• It is difficult for the funding agencies to arrange aligned calls. It is, therefore,
necessary to fund meeting places and mobility opportunities for
collaborating countries in order to stimulate international collaboration e.g.
National Science Foundation (NSF) and Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) funding workshop grants for transatlantic workshops in relation to
cybersecurity, including privacy aspects. These types of grants should be
encouraged to continue. This mechanism was highly successful in the FP7
INCO-TRUST and BIC projects in fostering INCO for Trustworthy ICT1.
Common Prioritised Thematic Focus Recommendations
• Although there are challenges with how to handle (personal) information,
security and IPR, lack of synchronisation of funding programmes, administrative
burden, policy disconnection and obstacles to interaction between industry and
research for transatlantic collaboration, it is still possible to establish research
collaboration as long as the challenges are thematised in the establishment of
the consortia;
• Suggestions by WG members for new potential projects should be as concrete
as possible e.g. such new potential projects will come under the research areas
cybersecurity, IoT, smart cities, eHealth, inclusive design, amongst others.
1 http://www.bic-trust.eu/
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 6 of 44
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the primary objectives of the DISCOVERY Coordination and Support
Action is to improve existing collaboration models, and if possible, to define new
ways to establish collaboration in ICT research and innovation (R&I) between
Europe, US and Canada. The project aims to support collaborative ICT research
between academic institutions and also international academic – industry
collaboration.
This Input Paper focuses on one aspect of this ICT collaboration, namely
Funding Mechanisms, which is an essential element of a successful collaboration
effort.
Funding mechanisms are defined as funding instruments for research and
innovation projects that span academia, industry and other research actors in
Europe, US and Canada. Within these regions, there are already well-established
instruments that stimulate and develop the ICT frontier and spur innovation
throughout the entire value chain from ideas, creative processes, research activities
and prototype development. Although the regional funding structures are well
established, there are significant challenges as to how to promote collaboration
between the regions.
As will be demonstrated in this document, this is a structural challenge that only
occasionally, and to varying degrees, has been addressed in a limited number of
ICT - related research and innovation calls for proposals.
One important driver in pursuing international collaboration (INCO) in ICT R&I is
the impetus from society and policy-makers that research should become “more
societally relevant”, and ICT plays an important role in addressing societal
challenges like Health, Security, Smart Transport, Climate/environment action,
energy.
Grand Societal Challenges such as these with significant impact for the global
population are expensive and generally too large to be addressed by one country
acting alone.
In addition, it has become imperative that science itself shows its worth to
society in a time when trust in science and scientific processes and results are
under constant scrutiny.
Fraud and misconduct in science, which have led to scientific outcomes being
questioned on subjective and personal grounds (e.g. climate change, use of
vaccines, and others) have led to a growing emphasis on Responsible Research and
Innovation (RRI)2 and increased scrutiny of scientific processes. This coupled with
Open Science (OS)3 is driving a renewed pursuit of international research and
innovation.
1.1 Methodology and Structure
The following methodology has been identified, adopted and expanded in the
structuring of this Input paper. The structure provides a clear path and guidance on
the necessary steps to enable interested parties to plan ahead and provide a tool-
2 RRI is the ongoing process of aligning research and innovation to the values, needs and expectations of society (Rome Declaration, 2014). 3 OS is the ongoing transitions in the way research/innovation is performed, how researchers/innovators collaborate, how knowledge is shared and how science is organised. It represents a transformation and opening up of science and research through ICT, with the
objective of making science more efficient, transparent and interdisciplinary, and of enabling broader societal impact and innovation.
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 7 of 44
kit identifying possible paths, including hints and tips, to enable collaboration,
identification of potential funding mechanisms and engagement options at an
international level.
Figure 1 Funding Mechanisms Structure and Methodology
Finally, we propose ‘Recommendations’ to policy makers, which will be of
added value for transatlantic collaboration in ICT R&I.
1.2 The Target Audience
The following key stakeholders would benefit from the information coming from
this Funding Mechanism Input paper, providing them with a valuable insight into
the types of funding mechanisms and initiatives available for EU, US and Canada.
Table 1 Interested Stakeholders: Funding Mechanism Input paper
Stakeholder Types
Researchers/Academia
Industry (SME, Enterprise) legal entities
Non-profit research organisations
Funding mechanism initiative Decision makers
Funding Agencies/ Body representatives
Current collaborative funding models are described and a snapshot of funding mechanisms and funding agencies from EU, US and Canada presented
A comparative analysis is undertaken of selected funding mechanisms
A user story of Annabel to demonstrate the practical experiences of engaging in international research activity
Obstacles, challenges and opportunities for international funding are identified / FP9 recommendations.
An analysis is presented that leads to recommendations for funding mechanisms that will better promote international collaboration in ICT research between EU, US and Canada and/or between EU and Canada and/or EU and US
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 8 of 44
2. CURRENT COLLABORATIVE R&I FUNDING
APPROACHES
Within existing international collaborative funding mechanisms, whether
bilateral or trilateral, various approaches are adopted and implemented; A sample
of these include:
1. Joint Calls (Common Pot, Virtual Common Pot);
2. Aligned Calls; and
3. Integrating Activities.
2.1 Joint Call
This is a co-ordinated call between funders with a joint peer review process and
uses a single process to overcome the difficulty of different timings of opportunities
between funders. A potential disadvantage of this method is that it often needs to
be underpinned by an agreement document between the funders, which due to the
considerable negotiation and planning required, can take time to develop. Funding
can be either through:
o Common Pot - funders pool their funds into a single pot and do not require
that their contribution is used to fund researchers from their own country. This
method allows for the top scientific proposals to be funded without impediment.
However, in most cases, there is a statutory requirements of some funding
agencies that their contribution is only used to fund researchers from their own
country. Where it is possible, the process for setting up agreements to support
these calls can be lengthy due to the movement of funds between countries. An
example of this mechanism would be INFRAVATION4 - ERA-NET Plus, which is a
pooled research fund to develop transport infrastructure innovations.
o Virtual Common Pot –funders pool their funds into a single call, but funds are
only used to support researchers in their own country. The benefit of this
method is that it can allow more partners to be involved, due to fewer legal
obstacles, and, for this reason, can also be much quicker to implement. The
drawback to this mechanism is that it can result in not all of the top ranked
proposals being funded due to differences in funding inputs and competing
demand from each of the countries involved.
Belmont Forum Calls5. This is an example of a Joint Call with a virtual common pot, as described above.
The reason for mentioning it here is that this is a process for worldwide international
collaboration, which is environmentally focused and has achieved considerable success
in establishing several international collaborative calls over recent years. Approximately
two calls have been funded per year since 2012. The challenges in its operation are
similar to those described earlier. In addition, the real costs of the calls are masked by
looking only at the funding stream, which doesn’t include underlying costs involved; for
example, there are considerable costs related to the administrative processes carried
out, even before the projects are funded. Also, some of the projects have to report to
several of the funders, putting an extra administrative burden on the project
coordinators. Due to the interesting nature and potential of this funding mechanism for
transatlantic cooperation in ICT, a representative of the Belmont Forum participates in
the DISCOVERY Funding Mechanism Working Group.
4 http://www.infravation.net/
5 https://www.belmontforum.org/
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 9 of 44
Figure 2 Summary Joint Call Types
To summarise, joint calls have their pluses and benefits and encourage
international cooperation, but the agreement documentation that needs to be put in
place amongst the funders is often time consuming and delays the setting up and
opening of the funding mechanisms. Simplification of the administration process
would enable such joint calls to become more effective and quicker turn around
time for applicants.
In the case of the Joint Call ‘Virtual Pot’ the administration effort for a Project
coordinator to report to several of the funders, puts additional strain on the
workings and impact of the Project. Easing this process by having a general set
reporting document and milestones, would greatly reduce this administration aspect
for the Project Coordinator allowing them to focus more on the Project technical
tasks, monitoring etc.
2.2 Aligned calls (or aligned investments)
This is where funding agencies manage their calls, or other investments such as
infrastructure funding, separately but organise the opportunities at the same time
and develop complementary objectives, including expectations that researchers will
collaborate internationally (e.g. Canadian participation in the ERA-NET).
The strength of this type of mechanism is that it can be relatively quick to
organise as funding agencies do not need to negotiate joint processes or budgetary
arrangements. On the other hand, it is often-times difficult to agree a suitable time
that suits each of the funding parties.
2.3 Integrating Activities.
In this mechanism type, funding monies can be used as ‘glue’ to integrate
activities that have been funded separately. The International Polar Year6 and many
of the Global Environmental programmes provide examples of where this has been
done on a large scale.
6 http://www.api-ipy.gc.ca/pg_IPYAPI_016-eng.html
Joint Call
•Coordinated call ( involving funders)
•Joint Peer review process
•Single One Open call / Application Process
Comon Pot
•All Funds put into one Single Pot
•Funders contributions do not necessarily have to be give to researchers from the funders country
Virtual Pot
•Single pot with all funds, but funders only support researchers from their country and their funds have to go to them.
•Porject coordinators have to report to sometimes several of the funders involved in the Call.
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 10 of 44
On a smaller scale, 'twinning' may be undertaken, where a small number of
grant holders are provided with supplementary funding for joint activities. The
strength of this mechanism is that it can draw together a large number of
investments from a number of different countries, and develop a critical mass in a
particular area.
Current example includes Twinning between Canada and Europe whereby “Each
twinning project should consist of at least one EU-funded project consortium (FP7
or Horizon 2020), and one Canadian project funded either at federal or provincial
level”7.
EU-US twinning activities generally focus on research, development and
technology and innovation specifically related to all modes of transport (e.g. Road
infrastructure, City logistics, automated road transport, ITS, Safety etc.).
All twinning activities are on a voluntary basis and lead to activities such as
visitations, exchanges of information, data, methodologies, researchers, results,
joint workshops, publications etc.8.
2.4 Public Private Partnerships
The role of Public Private Partnerships (PPP) is to focus on the identification and
implementation of key technologies and to successfully develop and integrate them
through federated projects. At EU level in the context of PPP’s, it is planned that
approximately €20 billion will be invested over the next few years in the context of
the Digital Single market9.
From an international perspective the PPP ‘Can provide the right framework for
international companies to anchor their research and innovation investments in
Europe’.
Current ongoing PPP’s include
1. Cybersecurity10
2. Photonics11
3. High performance computing12
4. Robotics13
5. Future Internet14
6. 5G15
7. ECSEL16
8. Factories of the Future17
7 http://www.era-can.net/canada/era-can-twinning-programme-era-can/ 8 http://ec.europa.eu/inea/sites/inea/files/6_eu-us_twinning_18_01_2017.pdf 9 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/public-private-partnerships 10 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/cybersecurity-industry 11https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/industrial-innovation-and-cooperation-
european-level 12https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/high-performance-computing-contractual-public-private-partnership-hpc-cppp 13https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/robotics-public-private-partnership-horizon-2020 14https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/future-internet-public-private-partnership 15 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/policies/5g 16 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/time-ecsel
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 11 of 44
Figure 3 Public Private Partnership Overview
17 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/factories-future
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 12 of 44
3. COLLABORATIVE FUNDING SCHEMES IN
EUROPE, US AND CANADA
In all three regions (EU, US and Canada), there are funding instruments that
promote and enable bilateral and multilateral collaborations in research and
innovation. This paper provides an insight and snapshot into some of these other
funding mechanisms and who can benefit from them.
3.1 EU Level Schemes
At European level, the Joint Programming Initiatives18, started by the EU
Member States, are making progress in coordinating national and regional funding
streams. All these are based on the Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda
(SRIA), which in turn, are underpinned by national priorities of the Member States.
In addition, the EU has collaborative instruments whereby Member States are
active in funding partners through the ERA-Net+ Instrument19. International
cooperation and participation in such funding schemes and mechanisms go beyond
the EU, with many other opportunities available to leverage for greater impact and
creation of cross jurisdiction synergies. This input paper provides an overview of
some of these options.
3.2 EU, US and Canadian Schemes
The European Union and North America (including US and Canada) already have
a strong comprehensive partnership in research and innovation. This can actively
be seen via the previous following initiatives:
1. Roadmap for EU-Canada S&T Co-operation20 and EU-US Co-operation21
(detailing the state of play of bilateral S&T cooperation, priorities for the
future S&T cooperation, potential new areas and improvements in
framework conditions).
2. Tables 2 & 3 provide an overview of some of the H2020 calls of interest to
encourage collaborations between Europe, US and Canada, as included in
the Roadmaps for EU-US and EU-Canada S&T cooperation.
18 http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/joint-programming-initiatives_en.html 19 http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/future-era-net_en.html 20 http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/pdf/policy/roadmaps_ca-2016.pdf 21http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/pdf/policy/roadmaps_usa-2016.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 13 of 44
Table 2 H2020 work programme topics encouraging EU-US Cooperation
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 14 of 44
Source: Roadmap for EU - USA S&T cooperation, October 2016
Table 3 H2020 work programme topics encouraging Canada Cooperation
Source: Roadmap for EU - Canada S&T cooperation, October 2016
There are many examples of cooperation in R&I between the EU and US and
Canada, (See DISCOVERY Deliverable D2.1, Landscape of ICT in EU-US and EU-
Canada Co-operation).
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 15 of 44
Due to a difference in the funding mechanisms at EU and US level, this leads to
a variety of different models and structures to implement such mechanisms. Table
4 provides a short overview of EU-US cooperation’s.
Table 4 List of EU-US Cooperation
EU-US Examples of Cooperation
➢ Majority of Member States have in place signed cooperation agreements for
science and technology cooperation with the US.
2. Bilateral partnerships have been developed between national funding agencies
and US federal agencies (NSF, NIH, DoE and NASA)
3. US Universities have also established campuses in various EU countries.
4. Mobility of staff and researchers – specific funding programmes exist to support
the exchange of these researchers between EU and US.
5. Ad-Hoc collaboration -leading to large number of co-publications between EU
and US researchers.
6. Private investment between EU and US companies in Europe and vice-versa.
While the EU and US have achieved many significant scientific innovations by
investing funds within their own research sectors in institutions of higher education
and basic research centres, the next horizon for tackling the dynamic and complex
challenges facing our world is the creation of cross-collaborative partnerships
to leverage the resources—both financial support and academic talent—of both the
EU and US. Likewise, the US and Canada has a vigorous partnership with strong
collaborations and interactions in research and innovation. To a somewhat lesser
degree, this is the case for the EU and Canada.
Moreover, the EC has funded a number of projects under H2020, including
the BILAT USA 4.0, DISCOVERY and PICASSO, and NearUS, which help to increase
awareness of EU, US and Canadian funding opportunities. In addition, most
researchers primarily use online tools such as Internet search engines, Web
applications, and mobile applications to find specific funding opportunities.
In the US, most federal organisations only provide grants to researchers at US
institutions (e.g., colleges, universities, corporations) or, in defense-related
research, require US citizenship or permanent residency for the Principal
Investigator and project staff.
Since US federal organisations are supported by US taxpayers, the federal
government aligns grant making priorities with those that benefit the nation and its
people. Some federal organisations, such as the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), are an exception to this general rule. Indeed, almost all NIH grants allow
researchers from anywhere and any institution in the world to apply and to serve
as Principal Investigators. Moreover, the NIH and a few other agencies such as the
National Science Foundation have specific programmes that even require an
international collaborator included in the proposals.
While the National Science Foundation (NSF) will not in general fund a non-US
institution, it is definitely possible and there are a number of examples of non-US
and European institutions in particular that receive NSF sub-grants. The BILAT USA
4.0 project22 (funded by Horizon 2020), has a database and a report detailing the
specific US federal agencies that have funding opportunities that are open to
European researchers23.
22 http://www.euussciencetechnology.eu/about/project 23 http://www.euussciencetechnology.eu/funding
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 16 of 44
3.3 Funding EU-North America R&I collaboration
The funding of regional collaboration in Europe and North America shows that it
is difficult to get funding agencies to align calls. There are numerous reasons
for this, but looking at how this is attempted e.g. in some of the Joint Programme
Initiatives, it is not very likely that a sustainable funding model for research
collaboration between Europe and North America can be based on the funding
agencies aligning specific calls.
Currently, the only region in Europe that has some degree of alignment of calls
is the Nordic region, whereby Nordic funding is administered through NordForsk.
Nordic research cooperation involves Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and
Sweden as well as the three autonomous areas, the Faroe Islands, Greenland and
the Åland Islands24.Of particular value in Nordic research and innovation
cooperation is the ability to build, via the established structures and in a short
period of time, common-pot funded research collaboration based on national
priorities.
These initiatives incorporate a considerable amount of national co-funding
and are open to researchers from all of the Nordic countries. The strong networks
and deep trust among the key actors that this generates creates significant
potential for future cooperation. The peculiar element of this regional initiative can
be summarised by the concept of Trust. This trust is linked to the fact that in the
Nordic region there is a Nordic cultural community, similar prioritisation and a large
degree of common identity. Moreover, Nordic countries are similar with regard to
academic levels and standards and this facilitates the process towards creating joint
programmes or common pot schemes.
Collaborative projects in ICT R&I are relatively few and not systemised but this
is not the case for the entire research sector. One very good example is the health
sector where The National Institutes for Health (NIH) in US has funding
instruments where everyone, independent of their affiliation, can apply for funding.
Examples of Funding Agencies at EU, US and Canada level are highlighted
below.
- EU Funding Agencies:
Funding Agency
The Research Council of Norway
Academy of Finland – AKA
TEKES Finland
The Swedish Research Council
The Swedish Research Council Formas
VINNOVA
The Danish Council for Independent Research
Innovation Fund Denmark
Danish Agency for Science and Higher Education
The Icelandic Centre for Research (Rannis)
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft - DFG
DLR Project Management Agency
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia - FCT
International Social Science Council of France
24 https://www.nordforsk.org/en/policy/norden/forskningsradene-i-norden-en
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 17 of 44
Funding Agency
French National Research Agency
NWO - The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research
Austrian Research Promotion Agency -FFG
Arts & Humanities Research Council - AHRC UK
The Economic and Social Research Council - ESRC UK
Spanish National Research Agency
Example funding agencies at US and Canada level are highlighted below
- US Funding Agencies:
Funding Agency
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS), including the
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)
Department of Energy, Office of Science (DOE-SC)
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)
U.S. Department of State (DOS)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
National Science Foundation (NSF):
- Smart and Connected Health Program, Directorate for Computer &
Information Science & Engineering
- Computer and Network Systems, Directorate for Computer and
Information Science and Engineering
- Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
- Canada Funding Agencies:
Funding Agency
SSHRC - The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada
NSERC - The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada
CIHR - The Canadian Institutes of Health Research
FRQSC - Fonds de recherche du Québec
Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 18 of 44
4. RESEARCH FUNDING INITIATIVES:
SNAPSHOT (EU, US & CANADA)
The following tables 5-7 provides a summary snapshot overview of different
types of funding mechanisms active at EU, US and Canadian levels.
4.1 US FUNDING BODIES Table 5 Snapshot US Funding agencies
Region Name of Funding initiative
Link Research Area
South America, North America, and
Europe.
The Trans-Atlantic Platform
https://www.transatlanticplatform.com/
Humanities and Social Science
Worldwide Belmont Forum http://www.bel
montforum.org/
Environmental Science
Worldwide U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES (DHHS)
http://www.hhs.gov/
Medicine, Public Health, Nursing, Biomedicine, Mental Health, Computation, Bioengineering
Worldwide U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC)
https://www.commerce.gov/
Environment, Engineering, Science and Technology, Business, Economics
Worldwide DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY, OFFICE OF SCIENCE (DOE-SC)
http://science.e
nergy.gov/
Energy research, Environmental
Sciences, Physical Sciences, Physics, Nuclear Physics,
Computer Science, Nanoscience, Engineering, Applied Mathematics
Worldwide U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY (EPA)
https://www3.epa.gov/
Environment, Ecology, Biology, Public Health
Worldwide NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF)
http://nsf.gov/ Biological Sciences, Computer Science, Education, Engineering, Mathematics, Physics, Social Sciences,
Worldwide U.S. DEPARTMENT OF Agriculture
http://www.ers.usda.gov/
Biological Sciences, Computer Science, Education, Engineering,
Mathematics, Physics, Social Sciences,
Worldwide ALZHEIMER’S DRUG DISCOVERY FOUNDATION (ADDF)
http://alzdiscovery.org
Pharmacokinetics, Geriatrics, Neurodegenerative Diseases, Drug Design, Alzheimer’s disease, Dementia, Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology
Worldwide American Association for
Cancer Research
http://www.aacr.org
Health Care Planning or Policy, Oncology, Cancer Prevention
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 19 of 44
Region Name of Funding initiative
Link Research Area
US
NSF - Smart and Connected Health
Program, Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering
https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pg
m_summ.jsp?pims_id=504739
Smart and Connected Health, ICT
US
NSF - Computer and
Network Systems, Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering
https://www.nsf
.gov/dir/index.jsp?org=cise
Computer and Network Systems
US
NSF - Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences
https://www.nsf.gov/dir/index.jsp?org=SBE
Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences
US
NEH - National Endowment for the Humanities
https://www.neh.gov/
Humanities
US NIH - National Institutes of Health
https://www.nih.gov/
Health
Worldwide American Psychological Foundation
http://www.apa.org/apf/
Psychology, Psychiatry, Medicine, Sociology, Sexology
US and some
British Commonwealth countries (mainly sub-saharan African)
Carnegie
Corporation
https://www.car
negie.org/about/
Public Policy, Education, Social
Sciences, Humanities,
4.2 CANADIAN FUNDING BODIES Table 6 Snapshot Canadian Funding Agencies
Region Name of Funding initiative
Link Research Area
Europe Banting Postdoctoral
Fellowships
banting.fellowsh
ips-bourses.gc.ca
Thematic area: Open to all
disciplines
Worldwide Canada Excellence Research Chairs
http://cerc.gc.ca
Environmental science and technologies; Information and communication technologies
(digital economy); Health and related life sciences and technologies; and Natural resources and energy
Worldwide Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)International Collaboration
http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca
Health
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 20 of 44
Europe SSHRC Insight Development Grants
http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca
Social Sciences
Worldwide SSHRC The Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Partnership Grants
www.sshrc-
crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/
social sciences and
humanities
South
America, North America, and Europe.
The Trans-Atlantic
Platform
https://www.tra
nsatlanticplatform.com/
Humanities and Social Science
Canada NSERC - The Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada
http://www.nserc-
crsng.gc.ca/index_eng.asp
Sciences and Engineering
Canada FRQSC - Fonds de recherche du
Québec
http://www.frqsc.gouv.qc.ca/
Arts, culture, education, media etc http://www.frqsc.gouv.qc.ca/en/la
-recherche/la-recherche-financee-par-le-frqsc/regroupements-de-chercheurs
Canada Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation
https://www.ontario.ca/page/ministry-
research-innovation-and-science
Supports world-class research, commercialization and innovation taking place across Ontario
through a range of programs and services like the Ontario Research Fund, Innovation Demonstration Fund and Ontario Venture Capital Fund.
Canada Innovation, Science
and Economic Development Canada
https://www.ca
nada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development.html
Innovation, Science and Economic
Development Canada (ISED) works with Canadians in all areas of the economy and in all parts of the country to improve conditions for investment, enhance Canada's innovation performance, increase
Canada's share of global trade and build a fair, efficient and competitive marketplace
4.3 EUROPEAN (NATIONAL LEVEL) FUNDING BODIES
Table 7 Snapshot EU Funding agencies
Region Name of Funding initiative
Link Research Area
Worldwide DeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft (DFG -
Germany)
http://www.dfg.de/en/
Science and Humanities
Worldwide Science Foundation Ireland
http://www.sfi.ie/ Science, technology, Engineering and Mathematics
Worldwide National Center for
Scientific Research (France)
http://www.cnrs.fr
/en
Environmental science and
technologies; Information Science, Social sciences and technologies; and Physics and Engineering
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 21 of 44
Region Name of Funding initiative
Link Research Area
Worldwide Research Council of
Norway
http://www.forskni
ngsradet.no/en
Science, technology,
engineering and mathematics, Physics and Engineering
Worldwide Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research
http://www.nwo.nl/en
Exact and Natural Sciences Social Sciences and Humanities Applied and Engineering Sciences, Physics
and Engineering.
Worldwide Austrian Science Fund http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/
Science, engineering, Technology, Humanities
Worldwide National Research,
Development and Innovation Office:
Hungarian Scientific Research Fund
http://nkfih.gov.h
u/funding/otka
Science, technology,
engineering and mathematics, Physics and Engineering
Worldwide Latvian Council of Science
http://www.lzp.gov.lv/index.php?mylang=english
Information Science and Technology, Biological, Medical, Earth, Environmental, Physics, Astronomy, Astrophysics and
Mathematics, Chemical and Material Sciences, Engineering and Energy.
Other EU larger funding
bodies
EU H2020
EU 3rd Health
Programme 2014-2020
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/
http://ec.europa.e
u/chafea/health/projects.html
Multiple domains (https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/find-your-
area) Health
South America, North America, and Europe.
The Trans-Atlantic Platform
https://www.transatlanticplatform.com/
Humanities and Social Science
EU Academy of Finland –
AKA
http://www.aka.fi/
en
Scientific research and its
application International scientific cooperation Science policy expertise Scientific research, researcher training and the development of framework conditions for
research
EU TEKES Finland https://www.tekes.fi/en/
Innovation funding for companies, research organisations, and public
sector service providers.
EU The Swedish Research Council
https://www.vr.se/inenglish/aboutus.4.69f66a93108e85f68d48000123.html
Clinical therapy,educational sciences,medicine and health, humanities and social science
EU The Swedish Research Council Formas
http://www.formas.se/en/
Climate, sustainable spatial planning
EU VINNOVA http://www.vinnova.se/en/
sustainable growth by funding needs-driven research and
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 22 of 44
Region Name of Funding initiative
Link Research Area
stimulating collaborations
between companies, universities, research institutes and the public sector.
EU The Danish Council for Independent Research
http://ufm.dk/en/research-and-
innovation/councils-and-commissions/the-danish-council-for-independent-research
all scientific areas that are based on the researchers' own
initiatives and that improve the quality and internationalisation of Danish research.
EU Innovation Fund Denmark
https://innovationsfonden.dk/en
Innovation Fund Denmark invests in new knowledge and technology creating growth and employment in Denmark
EU Danish Agency for Science and Higher Education
http://ufm.dk/en http://ufm.dk/en/research-and-innovation/funding-programmes-for-research-and-innovation/find-danish-funding-programmes
EU The Icelandic Centre for
Research (Rannis)
https://en.rannis.i
s/
Rannis manages international
cooperation programmes and national funds in the field of research and innovation.
EU NSF Europe http://www.nsf.org/about-
nsf/locations/europe
certification and testing services across Europe for
foodservice equipment, drinking water and plumbing systems and components.
EU Belmont Forum https://www.belmontforum.org/
societally relevant global environmental change challenges
EU DLR Project Management Agency
http://www.dlr.de/pt/en/#gallery/26469
Education, humanities, society, health, technologies, environment
EU Fundação para a
Ciência e a Tecnologia - FCT
http://www.fct.pt/ ICT, research infrastructures
EU International Social Science Council of France
http://www.worldsocialscience.org/
Social science
EU French National
Research Agency
https://en.rannis.i
s/
Education, culture, youth and
sports
EU NWO - The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research
https://www.nwo.nl/en
Chemical, Biosynthesis, humanities etc https://www.nwo.nl/en/resear
ch-and-results/programmes
EU Austrian Research Promotion Agency -FFG
307 R&D units http://www.fct.pt/apoios/unidades/unidadesid
EU Arts & Humanities
Research Council - AHRC UK
http://www.ahrc.a
c.uk/
Arts and humanities
EU The Economic and Social Research Council - ESRC UK
http://www.esrc.ac.uk/
Economics and society
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 23 of 44
5. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS EU,
US AND CANADIAN FUNDING
MECHANISMS (RELATING TO ICT AND
EHEALTH)
A complete analysis of all funding mechanisms across the EU, US and Canada is
a substantial research project itself. For the sake of this input paper, we have
identified the following snapshot process to provide an insight into possible options
of funding mechanisms of relevance to:
1. Identify 2 priority focus areas from DISCOVERY (eHealth and ICT);
2. identify sample EU, US and Canada funding bodies active in these domains;
3. Assess the types of funding mechanisms available for these domains and
comparative analysis.
Figure 4 ICT and eHealth sample funding mechanism Groups (EU, US and Canada)
ICT/eHealth comparative analysis
The following section completes a short summary overview of some of the
funding bodies of relevance at EU, US and Canada level in the eHealth/ICT domain
and a breakdown of the various features/workings in order to provide an initial
comparison of benefit to R&I transatlantic collaboration in the field. The key
descriptive features for each funding mechanism include an overview of the
following:
1. Funding sponsor;
2. Focus Area;
3. Organisation Structure;
4. Grants: organisation type;
5. Grants: citizenship;
6. Involvement of Foreign institutions/organisations; and
7. Funding Mechanism Types.
Tables 8 and 9 provide a brief overview of comparisons. This snapshot view
provides the reader with a basic understanding of the various types of funding
mechanisms to be further investigated and leveraged, to promote cooperation at an
international level and create synergies25. Within the ICT and eHealth research
domain, key leading initiatives include and have embedded international
participation aspects and joint calls of relevance to actively include and promote the
involvement of EU, US and Canada experts and organisations into the various
funding mechanisms.
25 The tables contain a snapshot of funding agencies in Europe, US and Canada in ICT /
ehealth. If interested, many others are elaborated in more detail via the BILAT 4.0 project http://www.euussciencetechnology.eu/about/project.
24
Table 8 ICT Funding Mechanism Snapshot EU, US and Canada
Domain: ICT
US: NSF Canada: CERC EU: EU Work Programme H2020 ICT
Funding Sponsor Federal Agency
Public to public partnerships (P2Ps) under the Horizon 2020 framework where public sector bodies at the local, regional, national or international level commit with the EC to jointly support the development and implementation of a research initiative or activities.
EU Commission Funding Body
Focus area Research areas in most fields of science and engineering ICT, Science, Engineering, etc.,
Understanding health, well-being and disease, preventing disease, treating and managing diseases, active ageing and self-management of health, methods and data, health provision and integrated care, coordination activities
organisation structure
For international cooperation: NSF’s Office of International Science and Engineering section (OD/OISE) and Partnerships for International Research and Education (PIRE), The primary goal of PIRE is to support high quality projects in which advances in research and education could not occur without international collaboration
Entities from non-European countries can also be part of a project if their national or regional funding agencies are participating in the ERA-NET.
Horizon 2020 is the biggest EU Research and Innovation programme ever with nearly €80 billion of funding available over 7 years (2014 to 2020).
Grants: organisations types
post doctorate & early career researchers, graduate students, and undergraduate students.
Ministries or regional authorities and/or program owners such as research councils or funding agencies.
Academics, researchers, SME's, industry, research organisations, authorities etc.
Grants : citizenship U.S. scientists, engineers, and their institutions All types of research councils or funding agencies. Project coordinators, consortium with partners.
Involvement of Foreign Institutions/ organisations
Over the years, NSF has conducted numerous multilateral projects, from the International Biological Program (IBP) and Tropical Oceans-Global Atmosphere (TOGA) Program to the more recent ones described in NSF News items. It has also fostered bilateral partnerships in all parts of the world. NSF supports cooperative research between universities and industries well as United States participation in international scientific efforts.
While some of these initiatives are open only to European union members and associated countries, a number allow participation from countries outside Europe like Canada. In 75% of all call budgets, countries and regions pay for their own participants. There are cases where countries pool funds and there are transnational flows of funds.
Dedicated calls e.g. coordinated activities (SC1-HCO-14-2016: EU-US interoperability roadmap. Other open calls specifically mention international cooperation and initiatives are encouraged. In line with the objectives of international cooperation as set out in Articles 180 and 186 TFEU, the participation of legal entities established in third countries and of international organisations should be promoted. Targeted actions implemented taking a strategic approach to international cooperation (dedicated measures in the 'Inclusive, innovative and secure societies' challenge)
funding mechanism types
Integral component of proposals submitted to NSF disciplinary programs. Supplements to existing awards •Proposals to International Office •U.S. participants ONLY –Faculty –Postdoctoral Researchers –Students (undergraduate and graduate)
Joint research agendas and launch joint calls for proposals, which are open to researchers and innovators from participating countries. Canada is a participating member in some ERA-NET Co-fund actions. The following active ERA-NETs allow Canadian participation: ERA-NET NEURON II, E-RARE 3, GENDER-NET.
research and innovation action, COFUND (European joint programme),pre commercial procurement, public procurement and innovation action, coordination and support action, ERA-Net COFUND
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 25 of 44
5.1 View of ICT Elements across EU, US and Canada
Figure 5 ICT Scope expanded to show topics for US, EU and Canada
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 26 of 44
Table 9 eHealth Funding Mechanism Snapshot EU, US and Canada
Domain: eHealth
US Department of health & Human Services (DHHS) Canada: CIHR EU: EU Work Programme H2020 Health, demographic change and well being
Funding Sponsor Federal Agency Federal Agency EU Commission Funding Body
Focus area Medicine, public health and social services Biomedical research, Clinical research, health services research, social, cultural, environmental and population health research
Understanding health, well-being and disease, preventing disease, treating and managing diseases, active ageing and self-management of health, methods and data, health provision and integrated care, coordination activities
organisation structure
11 operating divisions (National Institutes of Health(NIH) is one of the largest divisions made up of 27 institutes and centres (IC's) each with own research agenda)
CIHR is comprised of 13 Institutes that set research priorities and support a broad spectrum of research in their respective areas. Horizon 2020 is the biggest EU Research and Innovation programme
ever with nearly €80 billion of funding available over 7 years (2014 to 2020).
Grants: organisations types
Domestic public or private, non-profit or for-profit organizations. In some cases, grants also may be made to foreign or international organizations.
Health research and research training in universities, health care institutions (mainly teaching hospitals), voluntary health sector organizations and research institutes
Academics, researchers, SME's, industry, research organisations, authorities etc.
Grants: citizenship PIs and other personnel supported by NIH research grants are not required to be U.S. citizens;
Nominated Principal Applicant (independent researcher, knowledge user)
Project coordinators, consortium with partners.
Involvement of Foreign Institutions/ organisations
Foreign institutions and international organizations, including public or private non-profit or for-profit organizations, are eligible to apply for research project grants
CIHR contributes to, and supports international research projects and international collaborations to address a range of research areas, including but not limited to established priorities in global health research and contributes to the development of health-research capacity both internationally and domestically. When participating in an international collaboration, the Nominated Principal Applicant may apply for CIHR funds for the Canadian components only.
Dedicated calls coordinated activities (SC1-HCO-14-2016: EU-US interoperability roadmap. Other open calls specifically mention international cooperation and initiatives are encouraged. In line with the objectives of international cooperation as set out in Articles 180 and 186 TFEU, the participation of legal entities established in third countries and of international organisations should be promoted. Targeted actions implemented taking a strategic approach to international cooperation (dedicated measures in the 'Inclusive, innovative and secure societies' challenge)
funding mechanism types
Grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, sub-awards: foreign entities may be eligible
Grant programs, grant and salary programs, partnered program, industry-partnered program, affiliated institutions http://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/22630.html#1-A1-1
Research and innovation action, COFUND (European joint programme),pre commercial procurement, public procurement and innovation action, coordination and support action, ERA-Net COFUND
27
Within the ICT/eHealth Snapshot comparison (Table 8 & 9), the following key
points are noted:
1. For a funding body having an office that specifically focuses on international
cooperation and partnership initiation (as is the case with US: NSF (OD/OSIE,
PIRE), it is a very beneficial management structure to adopt and implement, as
it effectively opens up the doors for new and technical collaborative projects of
a very high quality to be initiated and funded. NSF as an organisation has
actively engaged in, promoted and funded multilateral and bilateral
collaborative research across many jurisdictions at a global level. This activity
has proved very beneficial in knowledge transfer and high quality outputs
beneficial to all.
2. The ERA-NET leverages international commitment to jointly support focused
research initiatives of interest. Non-European countries, for example, Canada,
actively participate to this funding mechanism, utilising the financial model
where the countries and participants actively pay for their own participants or
have agreed organised pools of funding to feed into the funding mechanism.
3. At EU level, ICT funding mechanisms actively come under the EU Horizon 2020
work programme. Here the promotion of international cooperation and
involvement of countries (e.g. with US, Canada and others) are actively
encouraged and stated in specific calls of relevance. This provides the
opportunity for a strategic approach to be taken in certain ICT research domains
to drive international cooperation.
4. Focused in the eHealth research domain, DHHS, NIH, CIHR and H2020 work
programme actively provide various funding mechanisms and streams
supporting opportunities for international organisations to part-take in research
projects and coordinated activities. These funding mechanisms actively fund and
support principle investigators, to researchers, to organisations being involved
in as a partner in EU funded research projects. Opening up numerous
opportunities across the jurisdictions via various grant programs suitable for
international cooperation. Such bodies utilise and put in place cooperative
agreements, grants, awards, partnered programs, ERA-Net co-fund options.
5. One major area of arms-length collaboration is between the NIH and the
European Commission’s Horizon 2020 SC1 funding opportunities. In fact,
because all NIH funding opportunities are open to anyone in the world, including
Europeans, the Commission has reciprocated by making any US researcher
automatically eligible for funding in all SC1 funding opportunities26.
6. The tables consider only Federal agencies in the US. Additional information on
the US funding landscape can be found in BILAT 4.0’s deliverable D3.1
Analyzing Report on Consultation Process with Funders and Policymakers27 and
in their funding data base28. In addition, it should be pointed out that private
research funding is very common in the US; e.g. Gates Foundation, Betty and
Gordon Moore Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (Hewlett
Foundation).
26 “The European Commission signed an agreement with the US National Institute of Health
(NIH) in 2008, which allowed participants from the US the same access to EC project funding as participants from the EU Member States (MS) and Associated Countries (AC)“. from Deliverable 2.2 of BILAT USA 4.0 http://www.euussciencetechnology.eu/assets/content/BILATUSA4.0_D2.2_EUProgrammes.pdf 27 http://www.euussciencetechnology.eu/assets/content/Deliverables/BILATUSA4.0_D3.1_final_forwebsite.pdf 28 http://www.euussciencetechnology.eu/funding
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 28 of 44
6. SAMPLE FUNDING MECHANISMS
SUPPORTING CYBERSECURITY – DEEPER
DIVE
At international level organisations need to incorporate effective safeguards against
the growing cybersecurity threat landscape. Such safeguards are necessary to
protect their daily business operations and also their third party customer’s
interactions.
Research funding bodies across EU, US and Canada actively seek to leverage their
funding mechanisms to support specific research in certain domains. Focusing on
Cybersecurity the following provides an overview of some funding mechanisms that
have and continue to be utilised to support much needed research in this ‘hot
topical’ focused domain.
Figure 6 Sample Security focused funding mechanisms
For researchers looking to delve into Cybersecurity research activities at national
and international level, it is initially important for them
1. Gain an insight into the ‘Hot Topics’ and research prioritised areas of interest
that funding is being devoted to at international level. Such topics change
from one year to the next, with new strategic directions and research
agendas/ roadmaps emerging at international level.
2. Investigate further the direction and security focus within the member state
they reside, identifying key initiatives, players and social media (bloggers,
twitter accounts etc.) of importance to follow and track, to keep abreast of
new emerging initiatives and prioritised focused areas. Extending this to
complete a cross analysis of such information with other member states
Cybersecurity focused initiatives and activities also provides researchers
with a good understanding of common areas of focus across of importance
at a wider level.
3. Depending on the jurisdiction in which you reside, investigate the
international activities within this cybersecurity research domain. What
•H2020 - Secure societies, protecting freedom and security of europe and its citizens ( international bilateral/ trilateral focus in specific calls) (http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/secure-societies-%E2%80%93-protecting-freedom-and-security-europe-and-its-citizens)
EU
•Department of homeland security (DHS)(https://baa2.st.dhs.gov/portal/public/PublicSolicitation_retrieveCurrentSolicitation )US
•CANARIE +Canada NREN security focused research projects (https://www.canarie.ca/network/cybersecurity-initiatives/)
Canada
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 29 of 44
projects are already funded, what international scope they have, who they
engage with at EU, US and Canada level to identify key players of
importance in each jurisdiction. Working to prioritise a list of potential
experts or groups for future interactions and collaborations.
4. Investigate potential online webinars or elearning tools of use to gain more
indepth knowledge into the challenges, barriers and research issues of
relevance to the specified research area of choice.
5. Once a researcher has identified 1) their Cybersecurity related area of focus,
2) potential experts to engage with, they can then commence investigating
what current available calls of relevance for funding are pending or planned
for the future [Example Fig 7], to assess to see if the core area of interest
and project ideas are within scope and the potential then exists to proceed
to the next steps of proposal writing and consortium creation and
submission.
Key focus areas of interest for cybersecurity, coming from the DISCOVERY
Cybersecurity Working Group include the following as detailed in the figure 7 below.
Figure 7 Sample Cybersecurity Hot Topics Research areas
Key projects ideas from the DISCOVERY Cybersecurity Working Group, to stem
initial ideas include the following
1. Development of an international project in relation to ‘cybersecurity ethics’.
2. Project studying the impact of the EU’s GDPR on the development of IOT
based systems and devices.
3. Project focused on cybersecurity of robots and connected, acting objects
(actuators), in terms of sovereignty and dignity, from the user point of view.
To gain a further insight into challenging areas and hot topical issues across the
cybersecurity/Digital inclusion or cybersecurity/eHealth sectors please see
DISCOVERY Deliverable D1.5 Cybersecurity Working Group Input Paper
[http://discoveryproject.eu/].
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 30 of 44
7. BILATERAL/TRILATERAL FUNDING
MECHANISMS - A COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS OF KEY FEATURES
To gain an insight into various funding schemes that have successfully utilised a
bilateral and trilateral funding mechanism, we will take a glance over three example
use cases, to learn from their experiences, in order to complete a comparative
analysis of their key main features.
• Use Case 1: Bilateral Example: EU Brazil Joint Call Structure
• Use Case 2: Trilateral Example: China, Netherlands, UK
• Use Case 3: Trilateral Example: Ireland, Northern Ireland, United States
7.1 Example use cases
Use Case 1 Bilateral Research Collaboration in ICT: EU-Brazil
Such coordination between European Union and Brazil has been ongoing for many
years since 2009, with successful joint calls resulting in outputs and results that
actively work to justify and sustain this partnership. The following provides a brief
overview of the Objectives, Stakeholders, Regions, Budget and process that creates
this bilateral Joint Call structure.
Key Objectives of such a Bilateral Open Call:
Such International cooperation open calls aim to support European competitiveness
and to jointly address, with other regions of the world, issues of common interest
and mutual benefit, thereby supporting also other EU policies (sustainable
development, environmental protection, disaster response, security etc).
International cooperation activities in this EU-Brazil Work Programme open calls
have three main objectives:
1. To jointly respond to major global technological challenges by developing
interoperable solutions and standards;
2. To jointly develop ICT solutions to major global societal challenges; and
3. To improve scientific and technological cooperation for mutual benefit.
Who can apply: Research centres, Local and Regional authorities, Corporations,
Agencies Chambers, SMEs (in Brazil the participating SMEs are identified ahead of
the call and generally fall under an incubation category), Universities, Non-profit
organisations, International Organisations.
Budget: EUR 5 million from EU; 5 million from Brazil.
Process
• Participants in the EU collaborative projects are required to conclude a
coordination agreement with the participants in the coordinated project funded
by the RNP (Rede Nacional de Ensino e Pesquisa - Brazilian National Research
and Education Network). A draft of this agreement has to be provided with the
proposal.
• Proposals submitted to this call that do not include a coordination agreement
will be considered ineligible.
• The proposed project duration shall not exceed 36 months.
• Proposals will only be selected on the condition that their corresponding
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 31 of 44
coordinated Brazilian project will be funded by the RNP.
• "Quality and efficiency of the implementation": additional evaluation sub-
criterion: Balanced effort between the two coordinated projects and a research
plan properly involving coordinated research activities between Europe and
Brazil, that ensure a more genuine EU-Brazil cooperation and represent an
added value to the activities.
• "Impact": additional evaluation sub-criterion: Standards are an important
element in the field of international cooperation. Beyond access to additional
research capability, international cooperation in the context of industrial
research should have global consensus and standards as a main target.
Contribution to the elaboration of new standards or adoption of standards
through implementation of research results.
Use Case 2: Trilateral Research Collaboration: (China, Netherlands, UK)
The National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), the Netherlands
Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and Research Councils UK (RCUK)
sought applications through an agreed trilateral open call, to support world-
leading research collaborations between Chinese, Dutch and UK research groups
in the theme of ‘Sustainable Deltas’29.
Trilateral Budget / Funding Agreement
▪ Up to £2M was made available from EPSRC though the UK’s Newton Fund.
▪ Up to €1.5M was made available from NWO and up to 15M RMB from NSFC.
Key concerns: focus areas and challenges were discussed amongst the 3
organisations and an agreed thematic focus for the open call was put in place.
Related themes for the call included Engineering, Living with Environmental
Change.
Who can apply: Each proposal must include eligible researchers from the
Netherlands, China and the UK, with a single nominated Principal Investigator
(PI) from each country.
Process
▪ Each Chinese-Dutch-UK research team should submit one joint application to
NWO.
▪ In line with the other funders, each UK applicant may only be named as an
investigator on one proposal.
▪ As the UK funding is provided through the Newton Fund, the UK research
activity proposed must be in line with Official Development Assistance
(ODA) guidelines, and evidence of ODA compliance must be provided in
the application.
▪ The UK research activity proposed in the application must be
predominantly within EPSRC remit.
▪ Standard EPSRC funding arrangements apply, except that no single items
of equipment over £10k may be requested by the UK applicants.
▪ Standard EPSRC eligibility requirements apply to this activity for
investigators and research organisations.
▪ The UK projects may be up to 36 months in duration.
The assessment process is conducted by NWO.
Any feedback on the proposal is provided to the Dutch partners by NWO.
29 https://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/calls/sustainabledeltas/
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 32 of 44
Use Case 3: Trilateral Research Collaboration (US, Northern Ireland (U.K),
Republic of Ireland)
In 2006, the US – Ireland research and development partnership30 officially
launched with the focus and aim to increase the level of collaborative Research &
Development amongst researchers and industry professionals across the three
jurisdictions of US, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
The partnership created the following guidelines that have contributed to its
success:
➢ Principle 1: Any project must have significant research participation from
each of the 3 jurisdictions. (Well balanced, collaborative research
partnerships);
➢ Principle 2: Quality Matters – only high quality research was funded;
➢ Principle 3: Each jurisdiction funds only the activities of their own
researchers.
Research priorities of common interest were agreed, and these formed the basis for
the trilateral open calls.
The trilateral R&D Partnership is guided by its steering groups (consisting of high
level representatives from the three jurisdictions (a co-chair from each). Such a
committee helps to keep the partnership on track and keep the momentum going.
This partnership has facilitated successfully international cooperation and has
excellent cooperation between the funding agencies in each jurisdiction. This
partnership continues to thrive and the underlying principles contribute in a positive
way to its success. Through this partnership, a close cooperative relationship and
high level of trust have developed between government agencies and funding
agencies in Ireland, Northern Ireland and United States.
Bilateral Budget/Funding Agreement
• National Science Foundation (NSF) for total costs based on size of the
proposed NSF project in their current running calls for proposals (small,
medium, large31) for the US participants.
• SFI for direct costs of up to €350k for a 3‐5 year duration for Republic of
Ireland participants;
• Invest NI for total costs of up to £300K for a 3‐5 year duration for Northern
Ireland participants.
Who can Apply
US: NSF Directorates and Offices
Ireland: SFI Directorates
Northern Ireland: Invest NI Directorates, DEL Applicants.
Process
• SFI and Invest NI/DEL applicants need to submit outline proposals and
budget requests to SFI and to Invest NI/DEL, respectively, 6 weeks in
advance of the official NSF submission deadline. This enables a complete
eligibility check.
• SFI applicants are subject to SFI eligibility criteria.
• Applications must be simultaneously submitted (identical copies of full
30 http://www.nsf.gov/eng/general/US_Ireland_MOU.pdf. 31 NSF Small Projects - up to $500,000 total budget with durations up to three years; NSF Medium Projects - $500,001 to $1,200,000 total budget with durations up to four years;
and NSF Large Projects - $1,200,001 to $3,000,000 total budget with durations up to five years.
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 33 of 44
proposals to SFI and Invest NI/DEL).
• Each proposal must have a minimum of one principal investigator of noted
repute from each jurisdiction.
• Proposal received at NSF are evaluated in accordance with the standard NSF
merit review criteria of intellectual merit and broader impacts.
In addition, reviewers are asked to assess the international collaboration in terms
of
1. Mutual benefits
2. True intellectual collaboration among international partners
3. Benefits to be realised from the expertise and specialised skills
4. Facilities
5. Sites and /or resources of the international counterparts
6. Active research engagement of students and researchers
Considerations for funding requests at Ireland and Northern Ireland level, is
dependent on receipt by SFI and Invest NI/DEL of confirmation by NSF of the US
agreement to fund the proposal on their side.
The following comparative analysis has been completed based on the above use
cases of bilateral and trilateral funding mechanisms.
7.2 Bilateral/Trilateral Cross comparison
Table 10 provides a brief comparison overview of the three sample use cases,
providing an opportunity to assess their process and key features, to see what
potentially works best for such international cooperation initiatives.
Table 10 Use case comparison table
Key Feature Use Case 1 (EU –Brazil)
Use Case 2 (China, Netherlands, UK)
Use case 3 (NSF/Ireland/Northern Ireland)
Budget ~5 Mil - funding
from each country agency representative
~2 Mil - funding
from each country agency representative. No equipment item over 10K allowed.
SFI ~350K
Invest NI ~£300K NSF provide US funding following successful review for small, medium, and large scale projects
Applicant
Types
Researchers, SME’s,
Corporations, Research centres, authorities
Researchers
(nominated PI each country)
Researchers, Minimum 1
principal investigator from each jurisdiction
Submittal process
Proposal submitted by both sides
Each Chinese/Dutch/UK
research team
submit one joint application to NWO
Need to submit outline application 6 weeks in
advance for eligibility check.
Following this, if the US application is successful, the funding will commence from all three jurisdictions.
Project
duration
Max 36 months Max 36 months Typically 3 to 5 years
duration ( max 60 months)
Analysis
1. The overall process of submitting identical applications to each funding body
representative is the approach used in Use case 1. In Use case 2, one joint
application is submitted to the NWO body for review. This process of submitting
identical applications, allows the separate funding bodies to assess the
applications at an individual level, to see if they meet their own individual remit
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 34 of 44
and quality level, before agreeing to fund the collaborative project. This process
provides a sense of remaining control with each funding body allowing them to
clearly have an input and say in the best allocation of the available funding
budget.
2. Use case 2 and 3 are more focused on research teams (Principal investigators)
for application submittals whereas Use case 1 (as per typical EU type work
programmes) is open to a more extensive group of applicants beyond the
normal research community. When implementing an international cooperation
initiative, it is important to clearly identify the key applicants and beneficiaries
of the funding calls, and the potential impact such initiatives can provide to the
relevant stakeholders. This needs to be clearly identified at the start, during the
initiative formation and agreement phase as this has a knock-on impact of the
type of structure required to be adopted and implemented.
3. Use case 3 at the international cooperation agreement and formation phase, put
in place core guiding principles and steering committee (representative from
each country), to help drive the focus of the partnership and keep a high quality
of research and outputs coming from the collaborative engagements. This
proved to be a valuable asset to this type of trilateral funding call, providing the
necessary momentum required to keep it successfully running and producing
high quality outputs. This is potentially a good formation / structure model to
adopt for such future international cooperation initiatives, especially those of a
multi-lateral nature.
4. Use case 3 also adopts an outline application submission 6 weeks in advance of
the full proposal submission - this provides the opportunity for an eligibility
check and a stop/go-ahead step in the process for the researcher(s) applying
for the funding. The acceptance process is also highly focussed on the US side,
with the final selection occurring with the successful selection and
implementation of the US NSF funded project. It should be noted that there isn’t
any flexibility in the funding levels for the Northern Ireland and the Ireland
participants, whereas the US participants can select the funding level based on
the size of the project being submitted (Small, Medium, Large funding levels).
5. In general, the funding bodies from each country try to match funding amounts
to each project (following a full separate review), to fund a particular project or
to allow the funding be utilised for a selected and reviewed group of
collaborative projects. This process allows the country involved to agree to a
core funding budget commitment on the remit that only fully reviewed and
approved proposals (of a certain high standard) will be funded following their
approval. This provides funding agencies with a key voice in the process and a
say where the budget is allocated.
6. Such considerations, as stated above, are very useful to feed into a learning tool
and framework for future EU-North America (bilateral and trilateral) initiatives.
What works and what does not work forms the basis for the implementation of
such initiatives and for their sustainability and success. It is important to learn
from such past and current initiatives, their key features, process used etc., in
order to work more effectively at a transatlantic cooperation level through such
join initiatives in the future.
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 35 of 44
8. FUNDING MECHANISMS – USER CENTRIC
SCENARIO
The DISCOVERY Project helps target users (e.g. researchers, innovators,
industry, and others) to access key information on funding mechanisms through the
DISCOVERY informative deliverables, partner search tool, and through the
Transatlantic ICT Forum and its active expert Working Groups. To support this
effort, the input paper has defined user centric scenarios to portray an example of
stepping through the process.
The following provides example User centric Scenario’s – detailing a Phased
Approach to initiate Networking/Collaboration and find suitable funding mechanisms
of relevance that can be a valuable source of information to direct and guide an
interested stakeholder.
8.1 Scenario 1 – Annabel the Researcher
In order to give a practical example of some of the issues involved in
international ICT research collaboration, it is useful to consider the experiences of
Annabel, 23 from Portugal.
Annabel recently completed her PhD in 5G energy efficiency with the University
of Lisbon. While doing her work, she was funded through the European
Commission’s Innovative Training Network (ITN).
Entitled 5G-NRG, the ITN allowed 12 early stage researchers to complete their
PhD training in various topics related to 5G telecoms and energy efficiency.
Identify research contacts / discipline
5G-NRG comprised six European organisations, but secondments are essential on
ITNs. So, Annabel spent eight months at the University of Washington and another
six months with the Canadian Telecoms Standards Authority (TSA).
After such intense study over the past three years, Annabel is taking three months
out to travel around Europe via train. She spends her day visiting museums and
parks, but the study bug means she spends a few hours each evening trying to
figure out what her next career move might be.
She liked Washington and has some good contacts at the University there. But the
Standards work in Canada really fascinated her. What a dilemma! And that’s before
she even thinks about funding her work! Annabel has too many questions to juggle
in her head so she stops looking up different funding programmes and decides to
take an alternative approach: she’ll do more general homework first before jumping
ahead and worrying about specific funding.
Homework / find area
First, she picks out the field she’d like to work in. Her PhD was on the overall
approach to energy efficiency in 5G networks, but she’d like to move into the
Standards side of things. So, she sketches out a broad set of issues which she
thinks would add value to the area. Next, she checks the TSA website for related
keywords and more importantly the names of people working on similar issues.
Annabel then zips over to the University of Washington website and while looking at
previous research projects they have completed, she sees that they collaborated
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 36 of 44
with the TSA on a data mining project in 2015. She quickly notes down the names
of the researchers involved and sends an email to each one, introducing herself and
briefly outlining both her PhD work and her new research interests.
Funding / find a call
After walking around Amsterdam’s Van Gogh museum the following day, Annabel
returns to her hostel room to find that she has already received two replies to her
intro emails. Unfortunately, both advise her to identify funding sources as without
this, it will be difficult to progress the work.
Annabel cancels her plan to visit the Anne Frank House that afternoon and
immediately starts searching different funding websites—Portuguese, European
Commission, American, and Canadian—for programmes where her and her research
interests might fit. After getting bogged down in trying to understand the
bureaucratic language used and policy documents that often ran to hundreds of
pages, Annabel clicks on a link for the DISCOVERY Project. It claims to focus on
funding mechanisms related to ICT, policy and regulations, as well as cybersecurity.
Annabel thinks this isn’t exactly her area but the website is easy to use and
navigate, plus it is roughly in her field.
Funding contacts / events
After spending 20 minutes on the DISCOVERY website, Annabel has a much better
understanding of the funding landscape. It’s not straightforward, but at least she
can see the different obstacles and challenges she will have to overcome to
progress her research career. She has a list of contact names and phone numbers
to ring, including the Portuguese National Contact Point, and that of the EC Office
which looks after EU-US exchanges. She can’t afford to call each of them while
she’s travelling but she’ll phone them when she’s back in Lisbon in two weeks.
Annabel also has a list of conferences and seminars which are taking place in the
next few months. She knows from her time on 5G-NRG that making new contacts is
both enjoyable and invaluable to advance her research. There will also give her a
sense of what’s popular in terms of upcoming funding programmes.
Just before she leaves the DISCOVERY website, she saves a list of projects from the
DISCOVERY search tool that had several tags related to her interests in 5G energy
efficiency standards. She can do more homework on these in the coming days.
Conclusion
Armed with all the above info, Annabel can now confidently reply to her contacts to
Washington and Canada, and possibly even ask for a quick Skype call to discuss
options. She hopes that her methodological approach might also inspire her future
work colleagues across the Atlantic to also identify funding and collaboration
options. And she might even point them to the DISCOVERY website!
8.2 Scenario 2 - Annabel the Entrepreneur After her travels, Annabel returns to Portugal, where she helps out in her aunt’s
accountancy firm. As when on her travels, she does her 5G research homework in
the evenings. The day job in ACCOUNTS-4-YOU is interesting, as she gets to assist
her aunt’s various clients with the queries and issues they encounter everyday.
Being comfortable with computers and the online world means she can work very
efficiently, in a paperless office, which is a nice change for her aunt and the clients
who were used to bundles and bundles of paper!
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 37 of 44
Identify business
Inevitably, Annabel is drawn into the world of industry and commerce, and now
wonders if there was some way she could combine her research interests, her
desire to work with Washington University and/or the Canadian Standards body,
and still run her own business. In a throw-away comment one day at lunch, her
aunt suggests she create her own start-up company. The seed takes root and
Annabel’s evening homework now centres on finding out what she needs to do to
start her own business.
Her core idea involves helping Universities and other campus-like sites such as
shopping centres to reduce their 5G energy needs. As well as the technical work,
which she is comfortable with, she must also now figure out how to manage
intellectual property, find clients, and obviously how to finance all this work!
Homework / Funding programme
The first place she approaches is the local office of Portugal’s National Enterprise
Authority. Here she discovers they have a technical training programme in place,
including links to their equivalent bodies in several other European countries. To
Annabel’s delight, they also have an informal agreement with an American business
school in Wallingford, which is just three blocks from the University of Washington.
Funding contacts
The contact point in the local Enterprise Authority is called Luis, and he has recently
returned from an information session in Brussels. Over two days, officials from all
over Europe were given a crash course in the various supports available to SMEs
and start-ups from the European Commission. Luis is delighted that he has his first
“client” to sell the supports to, and Annabel is a more than willing customer. They
decide to work together and start by contacting UNITEDSON, an American
multinational tech company that Luis worked for previously.
Luis’s contact there thinks UNITEDSON’s office in London have an internship
programme for start-ups like Annabel. Two days later, Annabel gets a call to say
the leader of this programme will be at a Horizon 2020 networking event in Seville
the following week and could meet her there.
During a coffee break at the event, Laura Stephenson, Executive Couch at
UNITEDSON, explains to Annabel how the programme works. The parent company
back in Boston provides paid internships for people like Annabel at each of their
global offices. In particular, they like to give people who are starting their own
companies’ experience: these are the enthusiastic types that have energy and
drive.
Conclusion
Annabel’s exposure to European Commission programmes via the ITN also means
she’s attractive to UNITEDSON. They’ve been trying to figure out the landscape of
Government and federal funding, so she can help them navigate this new area.
As with everything else, she knows that using the Internet for general and
background material, building contacts, and talking to people on the ground will be
the key factors in advancing her research field and her new transatlantic company.
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 38 of 44
8.3 International Collaboration Identification and Initiation Guidance Checklist
Below is a proposed initial guidance check list and basic starting steps to help
act as a first steps guide for those interested in international collaboration, as
follows:
Table 11 Collaboration initiation checklist
1. IDENTIFY YOUR AREA
Find area
• Identify at least 3 – specific, as well as general ones like Innovation,
International Cooperation, etc.
• Spend time browsing and reading the opening sentence
• Note the links and related sections at the end – remember the keywords used.
➢ IDENTIFY A SUITABLE OPEN FUNDING CALL
Find Call
• Use search engines and databases
• Go through examples
- Call to Topic to what info you will see (Specific Challenge, Scope, etc.)
- Types of project doc
NOW, YOU KNOW (1) WHERE TO LOOK FOR YOUR AREA, AND (2) HOW TO FIND
AN UPCOMING CALL
3. MAKE A CONTACT
• If a contact point is provided, send an email (a summary of your interests and
what you’ve just done in step 1 above)
• If possible, visit them or chat on the phone
• Get on their mailing list
NOW, YOU KNOW A CONTACT AND WHAT THEY CAN DO FOR YOU
4. ATTEND AN EVENT
• Build contacts and network
• Ask programme contacts for relevant events
• Search online
- Use Themes filter
- Search by date – e.g. EC often host ‘info days’ 6 months prior to a deadline
• Identify contacts/targets in advance
NOW, YOU KNOW WHERE TO FIND RELEVANT EVENTS AND HOW TO GET THERE
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 39 of 44
5. FIND A PREVIOUS RELATED PROJECT
• Search for keywords from your own research
• Background research
- Scope of work
- Coordinators and partners
- Search for them to see what else they’ve done and their track record
- Better informed when going to an event
- Language used
- Targets identified
- Knowledge of area
NOW, YOU KNOW (1) WHERE TO FIND PROJECTS OF INTEREST, (2) HOW TO
FIND OUT THEIR SCOPE, SIZE, DURATION, BUDGET, NUMBER OF PARTNERS,
AND (3) HOW TO CHECK THE TRACK RECORD OF POTENTIAL PARTNERS
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 40 of 44
9. FP9 RECOMMENDATIONS Moving from the European Commission Horizon 2020 Work programme to the next
EU RTD Framework Programme called ‘FP9’, it is important to take a step back,
assess what works and if room for improvement. Such recommendations are
valuable to help provide the necessary feedback to continue to build on and
implement effective Funding mechanisms at EU level that also have an international
impact.
As part of the DISCOVERY project activities an online survey was distributed to
funding bodies and national contact points (international relevance) in order to get
insights on FP9. Survey Title: DISCOVERY Consultation on FP9 - Areas to improve
International Cooperation, in particular EU-North America (US and Canada)32.
Following an analysis of the feedback, the following recommendations have been
provided
➢ When moving from H2020 to FP9 it would be deemed beneficial to have FP9
calls refer to current or future programs active in counterpart agencies (US or
Canada) as part of the actual call text, with the option to include an element to
the call text, that states, that proposals that include collaboration with
researchers working on these US or Canadian programs may be given extra
weight during evaluation phase.
➢ For more effective coordination between funding agencies in order to increase
international cooperation in FP9, the option of bringing together funding bodies
leaders for group discussion on funding priorities, to get a common view of
focus areas and open the forum for discussion around the potential for more of
a collaborative coordinated approach. For example the ERA-NETs might be an
initial good way to bring together such funding agencies in a flexible manner.
➢ Visibility of international cooperation should increase in FP9 - 'Access to
information remains spread over a number of sources, a centralised portal
building on all existing information, would help unify the actions of the NCP's
and provide a valuable tool for prospective users in Europe and beyond', as
proposed by SFIC. Discuss
a. Feedback to this question in general agreed with this comment and
would encourage the following to improve visibility. 1) It would be
helpful for US and Canada to have more information relating to contact
points. While in Canada there is a wide network of NCP’s, currently only
one entity (Pilot NCP) exists at US level, and this is not sufficient for a
country the size of US. The option of enrolling other organisations or
experts (voluntary or self-funded) that may be open to serve in the
capacity of ‘information contact points’ may be an intermediate step to
improve the situation.
➢ Moving from H2020 to FP9 the following thematic areas were prioritised as hot
topics areas
a. Health
b. Transportation
32 https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/DISCOVERYCONSULTATION
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 41 of 44
c. Ocean & Marine
d. Nanotechnology
e. Cybersecurity
f. Smart Cities/ Internet of things
➢ For international cooperation, and to support the simplification of processes
allowing international involvement, the following recommendations would
benefit
o For international involvement the requirement for international
organisation to have a Belgian jurisdiction as a backup, sometimes
makes it impossible for international organisations to participate.
Removing this requirement would open up new opportunities for
other international organisations.
➢ The new category of third parties in H2020 (international partners) allows
partners that are not automatically funded by H2020 to be involved without
signing the grant agreement which stimulates international cooperation.
Further education to both legal and financial NCP’s on this model is required
for effective knowledge transfer on the model to international researchers.
Appointment of a Third Parties Point of Contact would ease this process.
➢ For international cooperation, projects similar to the INCO projects were
deemed useful, flexible and effective. This type of INCO project type should
be considered again for future international funding mechanisms.
➢ Different terminology among jurisdictions remains an obstacle for
transatlantic cooperation. Having such a varied terminology leads to
confusion and lack of clear focus on what is required and expected. Having
more common approach to the terminology used at international level and in
open calls would alleviate this issue.
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 42 of 44
10. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
While bilateral relationships EU-US and EU-Canada are strong, “the
transatlantic bridge needs more high speed lanes” to enhance ICT R&I
cooperation. In this context, the need for additional funding to increase cross-
border cooperation and dialogue is very evident33, which requires collaboration
across national funding agencies to coordinate resources and conduct research of
the scale and complexity that no single nation can achieve alone.
The lack of knowledge and availability of funding programmes that can
be utilized in the research and innovation process is suggested as one of the main
barriers for transatlantic collaboration, which hinders sound, regular and efficient
interactions between the industry and research communities wanting to engage in
transatlantic collaborations.
In order to create strong and sustainable collaborative structures, it is
necessary for the three regions to make funding available for collaboration, bi-
laterally or tri-laterally.
The following recommendations are based on the analysis of the Input Paper
and also considering the recommendations from the DISCOVERY Working Group on
Funding Mechanisms.
Programme Specific Recommendations
• Excellence (e.g. Excellence in Science) is the prime target for international
collaboration and there is a need to also include industry in the research and
innovation activities, in order to have a more balanced programme for
research and innovation on both sides of the Atlantic.
• Funding mechanisms for transatlantic collaboration should leverage common
views/priorities: sharing ideas between continents, interoperability,
accessibility, transparency, collaboration and stability. This requires a
significant amount of discussions between the parties before the agreement is
signed, where complementary areas of research or joint interests have been
identified, in order that the resulting frameworks will prove valuable and
maximum impact. Without this advanced discussion on defining goals and
identifying areas where the added value is clear to support excellent research,
there is a significant risk to limited success and/or random outcomes.
• The time duration of the international agreements is very important and
should be carefully analysed and agreed beforehand by the parties. Otherwise,
they may not run for enough time to make any impact or become sustainable
with established collaborations persisting after the funding has expired.
• Transatlantic funding schemes should support bottom up innovation. This
includes the support of diversity that comes from multiple places and
perspectives. This is particularly the case when it comes to grand challenges,
which are recognized as too large for any one country and/or funding scheme
to solve but do require expertise and resources from worldwide sources.
• Transatlantic cooperation should be supported by multi-level funding, with
flexibility to fund activities based in other regions. In addition,
transatlantic funding mechanisms should also take into account the
investment in projects with greater risks.
33 This issue was also discussed in the Transatlantic ICT Forum WS, Brussels, Nov. 2016
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 43 of 44
Enhanced Collaboration Recommendations
• Funding Agencies should facilitate EU-North America ICT R&I collaboration
in areas of added value, for instance, excellence, pooling of competence, and
disruptive technologies. Joint calls and aligned investments are key challenges
for funding agencies. Common rules, eligibility and evaluation criteria represent
important approaches to reinforce transatlantic collaboration.
• Grants to fund meeting places and mobility opportunities for
collaborating countries should be encouraged to continue in order to stimulate
international collaboration e.g. National Science Foundation (NSF) and
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding workshop grants for
transatlantic workshops in relation to cybersecurity, including privacy aspects.
• Targeted exchange of knowledge and information about funding
opportunities between US, Canada and EU must be strengthened. Funding travel
grants for researchers across the Atlantic could also facilitate international
collaboration.
Common Prioritised Thematic Focus Recommendations
• Although there are challenges with how to handle (personal) information,
security and IPR, lack of synchronisation of funding programmes, administrative
burden, policy disconnection and obstacles to interaction between industry and
research for transatlantic collaboration, it is still possible to establish research
collaboration as long as the challenges are thematised in the establishment of
the consortia;
• Suggestions by WG members for new potential projects should be as concrete
as possible e.g. Such new potential projects will come under the research areas
cybersecurity, smart cities, eHealth, inclusive design.
Input Paper Funding Mechanisms Working Group
WP1_D1.3 DISCOVERY Page 44 of 44
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding Mechanism Working Group
DISCOVERY has been in operation since January 2016 and in this time has
contributed to enhanced dialogue between researchers, innovators, industry and
policy-makers through its capacity building workshops, the ICT Discovery lab and
the Transatlantic ICT Forum – all of which have been facilitated and supported by
DISCOVERY.
More specifically, under the umbrella of the Transatlantic ICT Forum, the project
has established and supported a dedicated Working Group on Funding
Mechanisms34, whose discussions and recommendations presented, have dutifully
informed this input paper.
Members of the Working Group:
o Jostein K. Sundet (Chair)
Ph.D., Special Adviser, Nordforsk
o Frances Cleary
Senior Researcher, WIT
o Jutta Treviranus
Professor and Director, Inclusive Design Research Centre (Idrc) at Ocad
University
o May D. Wang
Professor, Georgia Tech
o Jesse Szeto
Director, NCURA Global
o Talita Soares
Senior Policy Officer, EARTO
o Ron Van Holst
Director, High Performance Computing at Ontario Centre of Excellence
o Bonnie Wolff-Boenisch
Head of Research Affairs, Science Europe
o Erica Key
Executive Director, Belmont Forum
o Greg Singer
Director Research Services, OCAD University
o Henriette Krimphoff
Senior Scientific Officer at DLR-PT
34 Short biographies of Working Group members can be found at
http://discoveryproject.eu/transatlantic-ict-forum/funding-mechanisms/
