EU Framework Program "Horizon 2020"

Everything is bad in his native country, only abroad flowers bloom, taxes are collected, scientists are not offended, and high technologies are promoted. In Europe, to which we all, of course, strive, many years ago the Framework Program (Program Framework) was adopted, which is a plan of joint actions of the EU countries for the development of science; the last, seventh, ends this year, and it will be replaced by a new program for the development of common European science - Horizons 2020. The programs set goals and benchmarks, set priorities in scientific research, determine the rules for collective cooperation, etc. This is an indicator that, where And How.

The framework programs have done the most important thing - they started to form a single pan-European scientific world. True, they created quite a few problems: for example, the disadvantage of the 7th Framework Program was that it became a source of support not for small start-up businesses, but for large companies that won most of the projects and spent money on related programs (for example, building a pool for employees working in the field of nano). Silicon Valley in Europe did not work.

Now Europe has completely refused to create its own Skolkovo, Horizon 2020 has completely different horizons. By the way, according to the plan in the fall of 2013, Horizon 2020 should be finalized when all approvals are completed, and it remains only to approve the program and announce first events on it (contests, projects, conferences, etc.). True, the bureaucracy in the European Union is good, and there are already delays, but on the whole they will accept the program and begin to carry it out. And for us, Russia (and our neighbors), it would be nice to know that Europe’s priorities are, what research and development is supported, where does the world go and can we cooperate with them? Or compete?
')
For a start, there is a general noticeable reduction in funding for research projects and developments within the EU, especially the costs of joint projects are cut down: for example, in the framework of the Horizons 2020 program, a number of countries that previously received EU funding cannot now claim financial assistance (in particular, Russia , Mexico, Brazil). In this case, the participation of representatives of these countries as co-contractors of projects is allowed. After all, everyone is sure and speaks loudly enough that “Europe has no money,” while “Russia has money.”

Europe is changing its benchmarks, moving away from scientific, basic research, to short-term applied work. In view of cuts in funding, loss of independence is inevitable. From the speeches of representatives of the European Commissioner for Science and representatives of the US State Department, it becomes clear that in terms of metrology and standardization, Europe renounces its independence, fully harmonizing all standards and regulations with the United States. The Russian Federation is absent in this topic.

Not being able to finance research projects in full, the EU shifts its priorities in the area of ​​regulation and standardization. It is assumed that the first will provide a high level of scientific decisions to be implemented (i.e., an increase in the quality of management decisions), and the second — made at the expense of the United States — will create a uniform structure oriented towards the American market. To perform the first task, the forecasting and analytical component will be strengthened, including monitoring: a huge amount of statistical information will be collected and specific projects for the collection and analysis of materials will be proposed. There will also be strengthened the direction of NanoSafety (all safety standards).

The words about Rosnano, which, apparently, was chosen as a sample, are repeated many times. Educational goals have disappeared, there is no training at all, there is little science. Apparently, the lack of state funding is forcing Western scholars and organizations to make contact with Rosnano and China, which have access to guaranteed state funding. China is extremely interested in Europe. At the same time, there is a clear imbalance: Europe today is a source of scientific knowledge, and China is their commercialization, the official delegation of China (very representative) repeatedly reiterated its readiness to work with Europe, which practically means an interest in technology.
In terms of the actual work, an increasing role is being given to “social projects”, which are all works that are positively assessed in society (ecology, renewable energy, etc.), the costs of them have increased disproportionately. Thus, of Horizon 2020’s 80 billion budget, almost 40% (34 billion) will be spent on “societal projects”.

Nanotechnologies, no matter how laughed at them here, are still among the priorities, the Roadmap for the development of nanotechnologies in Europe for the period up to 2020 has been developed, the main areas are highlighted: construction materials and nanobiotechnology (human genome, etc.). One of the areas of nanobio will be nanomedicine, the achievements of which are designed to solve the problem of population aging. There were no specific programs or devices, it was about creating a so-called care cycle, when health care is included in the system of treatment, diagnostics, etc. Personal medicine includes both personal (individual) diagnostics and treatment. A large role is given not only to the collection of information, but also to its analysis (computing) and transmission. In this regard, the figure was voiced that in the EU there are 49 products of nano-medicine on the market. Of these, 18 - nano-drugs - nanopharmaceuticals (including drug delivery), 15 - imaging. 70 products are undergoing clinical trials.

At the same time, it is recognized that the innovation processes in nanotechnology (and especially commercialization) have failed. Lax Research’s companies lost 20–30% of their market value over the past year. The market turned out to be overheated and there was a need for government funding, hence the interest in Rosnano, in joint programs, the abandonment of independent policies and a turn towards short-term projects. 75% of startups in the field of nano in the EU can not exist without serious external injections. Venture capital in 2012 is only a quarter of the level of 2006. stagnation is observed. The solution of the issue is seen exclusively in regulation and standardization: the key word “optimization”. A bunch of committees, meetings, etc. is created. It is believed (PR, Apparently, literate!) That in Russia Rosnano successfully translates science into money, and they want to reproduce its experience (well, get some money from Russia!).