Written evidence submitted by the

Europlanet 2020 Research Infrastructure (LEA0131)

Summary

1.         Europlanet strongly supports the position that the highest priority for UK science is to maintain the same level of access to Horizon 2020 and future funding framework programmes of the European Union, so that the UK research community can both benefit from them and help to shape them.

Introduction

2.         The Europlanet 2020 Research Infrastructure (RI) is a €9.95 million project to integrate and support planetary science activities across Europe. It is funded by the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 programme for the period from 1st September 2015 to 31st August 2019. Europlanet 2020 RI is led by the Open University and has 33 funded participants, including University College London, the University of Aberystwyth and the Natural History Museum.
3.         The Europlanet project was founded more than a decade ago to maximise the scientific return from investment in international planetary missions. The European Commission has funded Europlanet through successive framework programmes, including €2 million under Framework 6 and €6 million under Framework 7.
4.         In addition to Europlanet projects, the European Commission has supported the European planetary science community with calls targeted at specific areas of planetary science (e.g. Near Earth Objects, Venus, Mars, astrobiology), comprising over €20 million funding. In total, more than 15 research institutes and companies in the UK have benefited from involvement in planetary-related projects funded through Framework 6, 7 and Horizon 2020, receiving about 18% of the total funding overall.
5.         Funding from EU Framework programmes has allowed Europe’s planetary science community to develop self-organized programmes, in order to complement and support the activities of the European Space Agency (ESA) from the bottom up.
6.         Europlanet is pleased to make a submission to the Science and Technology Select Committee’s inquiry into the implications of leaving the EU for science and research. This written evidence covers Europlanet’s responses both to the questions in the original terms of reference and to the further call for perspectives on potential risks and opportunities.

Response to Committee questions

Q1. What the effect of the various models available for the UK’s future relationship with the EU will be on UK science and research, in terms of:

-          Collaboration;

7. EU funding through FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020 has played a significant role in forming a cohesive European planetary community with a shared sense of identity.  The most obvious manifestation of this is the European Planetary Science Congress (EPSC), founded in 2006 through the FP6 EuroPlaNet Coordination Action, and now a self-sustaining annual meeting. With more than 1000 participants (more than 300 of which came from the UK), the EPSC hosted by UCL in 2013 was the largest stand-alone meeting on planetary science held in Europe to date.
8. ESA’s annual budget for science and robotic exploration, which covers solar system science as well as astronomy and fundamental science, is over €650 million[1] (around one fifth of the corresponding NASA budget[2]). The UK government contributes €155 million for these programmes as part of its annual subscription to ESA and has invested an additional £214 million in ESA’s ExoMars mission[3]. However, while NASA and other national space agencies have the responsibility both of developing missions and supporting the scientific communities involved, the remit of ESA is restricted to building and operating space missions[4]. Support for the underpinning scientific community is distributed among its national members and institutions, each with their own funding and support regimes. Europe’s planetary science community is at least as large as its US counterpart[5], with more than 800 tenured academics and around 3000-4000 young researchers spread across over 20 countries and around 200 research institutions. The European planetary science community is, therefore, much more diverse, and EU funding has played a vital role in enabling the community to carry out coordinated activities and maximise the scientific return from investment in international planetary missions.
9. The UK has more than 20 planetary science research groups and at least 10 companies and SMEs involved in planetary missions. At least 10 UK organisations are currently involved in active FP7 and Horizon 2020-funded projects related to planetary science (Europlanet 2020 RI, EURO-CARES, PPOS, MIARD, UPWARDS, EU-SPACEAWE, EuroVenus, NEOShield-2).
10. One future model for a relationship between the UK and EU would be for the UK to sign an association agreement for Horizon 2020, through which it would contribute a proportion of GDP to the Horizon 2020 budget and receive the same access to the programme as EU Member States and other Associated Countries.
11. Europlanet would like to emphasise that the more restrictions that there are in place on UK participation in Horizon 2020, the less attractive the UK becomes as a potential partner for consortia in Horizon 2020 bids.
12.     The Europlanet Consortium was founded in 2013 to support European planetary science with a sustainable, active community for decades to come. The consortium is linked by a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), with more than 90 research institutes and companies signed up to date. The Europlanet Consortium has been an active hub for discussing and forming consortia for Horizon 2020 proposals, developing roadmaps for the European planetary science community and engaging with decision-makers for planetary science.  Currently, the Europlanet Consortium is chaired by Professor Nigel Mason and administered by an office at the Open University.  Following a UK exit from the EU, it will be problematic for the Europlanet office to remain in the UK if it is to represent the overall needs of the European planetary science community. This will diminish the role and influence of UK planetary scientists in shaping strategy and priorities for the European community.

-          Free movement of researchers and students;

13.     Access to the Horizon 2020 programme depends on whether the UK will uphold free movement of people. Switzerland has had partial association with Horizon 2020 since it voted for quotas on immigration in 2014 and, if goes ahead with implementing the policy limiting free movement of people, Swiss institutions will be able to participate in the Horizon 2020 programme with third country status only, i.e. with no access to funding.
14.     Thus, limits in freedom of movement by the UK are likely to restrict UK access to Horizon 2020 funding for UK researchers, and of course reduce the overall level of high-skill employment in the UK.
15.     In addition to the loss of funding, restrictions on freedom of movement will also weaken the UK’s capacity/ability to attract top quality academics and students – both from the EU and from non-EU countries.
16.     A significant proportion of the UK planetary research community is made up of EU researchers; according to the Royal Astronomical Society’s 2010 Demographic survey, 12% of academic staff and 25% of post-doctoral research associates are from the EU.
17.     Many UK planetary researchers have also spent part of their career in Europe, giving them access to facilities without equivalent in the UK, as well as opportunities to build professional relationships with scientists around the world. On returning to the UK, they bring enhanced experiences and skill-sets that strengthen the UK’s research community.
18.     Limitations on free movement of people could also have a negative impact on longstanding collaborations between UK and EU research groups, where exchange and secondment of staff are essential to the working practices of the collaboration.
19.     The European Research Council (ERC) and Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MCSA) of Horizon 2020 provide funding for researchers at all stages of their careers.  ERC funding has allowed several leading planetary research teams to be located in the UK. MCSAs enable UK institutions to host the most talented researchers from across Europe, bringing diverse experience and skills. Limiting access to Horizon 2020 and particular access to MCSA and ERC programmes will therefore weaken the UK’s research community.
20.     The prospect of working in Europe, through programmes like MSCA, is particularly attractive for young scientists and early careers researchers, and it can be a significant attraction for students considering a career in planetary-related fields. Limitations on the freedom of movement will be detrimental to the ability of UK planetary science to attract the top students into the field.
21.     The uncertainty following the referendum is already impacting the options and decisions of researchers on an individual basis. The ‘two-body’ problem is particularly prevalent in astronomy, and the UK’s relationship with the EU has implications for the families of many researchers within planetary science community. Specific examples put forward in our community consultation include a UK researcher in Austria who is reconsidering a job offer in the UK because of the implications for his Dutch wife; and an Indian researcher who has rejected a job offer in the UK following the referendum as he now considers his career prospects to be better in India.
22.     ESA and the European Southern Observatory (ESO) are funded through independent contributions. However, limitations on freedom of movement imposed by the UK may have implications for the several hundred UK scientists and engineers that work for these organisations at their facilities in mainland Europe, as well as associated companies such as HE Space.

-          Access to funding;

23. The UK is a net beneficiary when it comes to research funding from EU framework programmes.[6]  Withdrawal from the EU would mean that the UK research community could lose out on this very significant source of funding.
24. The UK has been extremely successful in forming partnerships and bidding for Horizon 2020 funds. UK partners have received 17% of the funding for active FP7 and Horizon 2020 projects related to planetary science (€3.87 million out of a combined total of €22.4 million for Europlanet 2020 RI, EURO-CARES, PPOS, MIARD, UPWARDS, EU-SPACEAWE, EuroVenus, NEOShield-2).
25. EU funding is particularly critical to small research groups, which are much more vulnerable to UK funding fluctuations. EU funding through Horizon 2020 Calls, ERC grants and MCSA provides resilience and stability that are vital for such smaller groups’ survival.
26. While the UK is unlikely to officially leave the EU before 2019 and UK institutions can continue to bid for Horizon 2020 funding until that point, the uncertainty is already starting to undermine the attractiveness of UK partners for consortia.
27. Europlanet therefore urges the UK Government to make a clear statement that the UK will continue to invest in Horizon 2020 and maintain at least an associate status for the duration of the programme, particularly as additional funding may be released towards the end of the framework programme.
28. Moreover, if UK researchers are to have a voice and an ability to influence the shaping of the next framework programme, there needs to be a clear and early commitment to Framework 9. Without this, the UK will be excluded from discussions on the writing of the next phase of the Framework Call and Strategy, and this will put the UK at a disadvantage in the long term.

-          Access to EU-funded research facilities, both in the UK and abroad

29. Europlanet 2020 RI and other Horizon 2020-funded research infrastructures provide transnational access to world-leading facilities and field sites. Withdrawal from the EU would restrict the access of UK researchers to these cross-border access programmes.
30. For facilities funded on the ITER model, where the EU is a partner rather than individual European nations, withdrawal from the EU would leave UK at a disadvantage since it would lose membership status. It is also unlikely that future EU led/funded research facilities would be located in UK.
31. ESA and ESO are independent contributions, but the EU provides ESO and ESA with matched funding for projects. UK access to these matched funding projects would be at risk, or could require additional funding from the UK.

- Intellectual property and commercialisation of research

32. There may be implications for UK access to intellectual property developed under present and past EU projects and consequently owned by the EU or regulated by EU-led consortia.
33. ERC proof of concept awards have supported UK planetary researchers in the commercialisation of their research (e.g. the ExoData to support development of an independent exoplanet mission, Twinkle).
34. Uncertainty in the financial markets is likely to have a negative impact for organisations seeking investment to enable commercialisation of their research.

Q2. What the science and research priorities for the UK Government should be in negotiating a new relationship with the EU.

35.     We believe that the highest priority in science and research for the UK Government should be to maintain our current, pro rata GDP, investment in Horizon 2020 and ensure that the UK has full partner status in any successor Framework programme with access to all of its programmes.
36.     A long term perspective and clarity of strategy is essential to ensure that UK researchers are able to participate in the preparation of programmes in Framework 9 and are able to participate in such a programme on equal terms with our EU colleagues.

Q3. What science and technology-related legislation, regulations and projects will need to be reviewed in the run up to the UK leaving the EU.

37.     The UK has invested (and will continue to invest) significant financial resources into space missions through its membership of ESA. However, a large proportion of the exploitation of data from missions is now funded via the EU projects. The framework for access to mission data will need to be reviewed to ensure that the UK is not at a disadvantage when it comes to the exploitation of such mission data, and thus lose out on return on the initial taxpayer investment.
38.     Clarification should be sought on the implications for UK access to and participation in large-scale facilities funded through an ITER-style model where the EU is a partner, rather than a national country.
39.     Earlier this year, the Luxembourg government announced that it would be putting in place a legal framework for asteroid mining.  This sector has huge commercial potential through unlocking valuable resources.  The UK has significant expertise in this area of science and steps should be taken to ensure that the UK is not excluded from opportunities to participate in future European asteroid mining programmes.
40.     Several UK institutions are involved in Teaming and Twinning actions under the Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation programme, including the establishment of Centres of Excellence in planetary/space science in Hungary and the Czech Republic.  The implications of a UK exit on the ongoing involvement and future participation in these programmes should be reviewed.
41.     There should be clarification of UK access to EU owned Intellectual property developed during the time that the UK was a member of the EU.

Q4. The status of researchers, scientists and students working and studying in the UK when the UK leaves the EU, and what protections should be put in place for them.

42.     EU researchers, scientists and students working and studying in the UK should be given the same status and protections as they have at the moment, including pension rights and opportunities for career progression.  If the UK is to maintain its leading role in planetary science, it is vital that it continues to attract the most qualified and talented people and offers them career prospects and security.

Q5. The opportunities that the UK’s exit presents for research collaboration and market access with non-EU countries, and how these might compare with existing EU arrangements.

43. We can see no benefits from the UK’s exit that will enable us to develop new research collaborations and market access with non-EU countries. Indeed, space and planetary science is an international field, and we believe that potential international partners in space programmes (e.g. China, India, Japan  and USA) will likely find partners that are part of the larger ESA/EU programme more attractive. As an example, our past involvements with India were only made possible since they provided Indian researchers with access to wider European community. A smaller isolated UK space/planetary community will be seen as a weaker partner.

Q6. What other measures the Government should undertake to keep UK science and research on a sound footing, with sufficient funding, after an EU exit.

44. We urge the Government to continue to invest at the same level and ensure that the UK maintains involvement in Horizon 2020 and future Framework funding programmes.

Q7. Risks and Opportunities

Europlanet has identified the following risks:

45. Risk: Reduced access and involvement in H2020 and future framework programmes.
46. Cause: The UK reducing or ending its contributions to Horizon 2020 and its successor funding programmes, and/or implementing a policy on freedom of movement that means it is only eligible to participate in such programmes as a partner from any industrialised third country not holding associate status to Horizon 2020, such that UK participants are not eligible for funding and/or have reduced participation in collaborative science and technology networks across the European Research Area.
47. Consequences: The UK would lose out on vital funding and opportunities to collaborate in high-impact European research projects.
48. Impact: The UK is a net beneficiary of EU research programmes, thus any reduction in access – or a scenario where the UK receives back the same as its contribution – would lead a significant funding gap. This would be particularly felt by smaller research groups for whom EU funding provides a level of stability and resilience from fluctuations in UK funding. The UK has a record of ‘punching above its weight’ in the global research community[7] and the UK’s position as a focal point for global research collaboration and researcher mobility is a key factor in its success. The UK’s international co-authorship partnerships are typically associated with high field-weighted citation impact, and 60% of the UK’s internationally co-authored research papers are with EU partners. In addition to loss of funding, limitations on UK participation in EU funding programmes would have a negative impact on the ability of UK researchers to collaborate with EU partners, and this would likely restrict the UK’s involvement in high-impact research and diminish the UK’s overall standing in the global research community.
49. Mitigation measure: The UK government should make a clear statement that the UK will continue to invest in Horizon 2020 and maintain at least an associate status for the duration of the programme.

50. Risk: No role for the UK in shaping the EU’s upcoming Ninth Framework Programme and hence reduced opportunities for UK researchers
51. Cause: The UK showing no clear commitment to participate in future EU framework funding programmes, or implementing policies that would restrict UK participation or third country status.
52. Consequence: UK researchers would have no voice or influence in shaping the next funding programme. Areas of particular research speciality or importance in the UK may be overlooked in funding calls, and European research themes and programmes may be disconnected from UK funding priorities.
53. Impact: A particular strength of the UK is its well-rounded, multidisciplinary research base. Within planetary science, the UK has expertise in a broad range of research topics that make it an attractive partner in a particularly international and cross-disciplinary field.  UK researchers had input into the overall shaping of Horizon 2020 and have been successful in lobbying for specific, niche topics to be included in space related calls (e.g. lunar data exploitation and planetary space weather).  Without channels to influence the shaping of Framework 9, research topics that are important to UK academia and UK industry may not be included in funding calls, and the UK’s role and influence in developing European space strategy and priorities for the European community will be diminished.
54. Mitigation measure: The UK government should make a clear and early commitment to full participation in Framework 9.

55. Risk: Losing out on attracting top talent from EU and non-EU to work in the UK
56. Cause: Limitations on freedom of movement from the EU would make it more difficult for UK universities to recruit the best researchers from the EU. Non-EU researchers may also find the UK a less attractive job prospect if it is outside the EU research community.
57. Consequence: The UK is unable to bring in the skills and experience to enrich its home-grown pool of researchers.
58. Impact: The UK’s international standing as a world-leader for research and hub for international collaboration will be diminished.
59. Mitigation measure: Ensure that researcher mobility between the UK and EU member states is safeguarded.

60. Risk: The UK becomes less attractive as a partner internationally
61. Cause: A significant factor in UK’s attractiveness as a partner for non-EU research groups is the access that it provides to the wider European research community. Restrictions on UK access to Horizon 2020 and future EU funding programmes would make the UK a less attractive prospect.
62. Consequence: The UK loses out on opportunities for international collaboration.
63. Impact: The UK’s international standing as a world-leader for research and hub for international collaboration will be diminished.
64. Mitigation measure: Ensure that UK participation in Horizon 2020 and future framework programmes is maintained.

65. Risk: Loss of opportunity for UK researchers to develop their skills/contacts/experience abroad
66. Cause: Limitations on freedom of movement to and from the EU would make it more difficult for UK researchers to work in EU countries and to develop skills and contacts that enrich the UK’s research community in the long-term.
67. Consequence: UK researchers would miss out on opportunities to work in EU groups with expertise or facilities that are not available in the UK, and to develop collaborations that benefit the UK research community. Such periods abroad are valuable parts of academic training that are often considered when researchers are applying for permanent positions.
68. Impact: The UK’s international standing as a world-leader for research and hub for international collaboration will be diminished. The lack of postdoctoral experience abroad will be a further disadvantage in an already difficult market-place for academics seeking permanent positions.
69. Mitigation measure: Ensure that researcher mobility between the UK and EU member states is safeguarded.

70. Risk: Loss of access to research facilities through Transnational Access and for EU-supported facilities e.g. ITER
71. Causes: The UK reducing or withdrawing from participation in Horizon 2020 and future framework-funded projects, thus reducing access to facilities through EU funded pan-European research infrastructures, or limiting access to EU-owned facilities.
72. Consequence: UK researchers have reduced access to facilities vital for their work that are not available in the UK. International researchers and industry choose to use EU facilities that are funded by EU access grants.
73. Impact: UK researchers are disadvantaged in accessing world-class facilities in comparison to their European peers. UK facilities are under-used. UK participation in academic and industrial partnerships is reduced.
74. Mitigation measure: Ensure UK participation in Horizon 2020 and future framework programmes that both provides access to research infrastructures in Europe and ensures that UK infrastructures are open to European research community.

75. Risk: Loss of support for commercialisation
76. Causes: The UK reducing or withdrawing from participation in Horizon 2020 projects, thus reducing access EU grants to support commercialisation e.g. ERC Proof of Concept grants, Horizon 2020 SME Instruments.
77. Consequence: Commercialisation of UK research is restricted and European competitors gain advantages.
78. Impact: Opportunities for UK business and job creation are lost.
79. Mitigation measure: Ensure that UK participation in Horizon 2020 and future framework programmes is maintained, or find additional ways of supporting start-ups to commercialise UK research.

80. Risk: Increased administrative burden for UK institutions in applying for UK funding to support participation in Horizon 2020 projects.
81. Cause: The UK having only third country status, thus being ineligible for Horizon 2020 funding and needing to find external/national funding to participate in leading European collaborations.
82. Consequence: The UK would become a potentially unreliable partner for consortia. Researchers would need to contribute to two separate bids to participate in one project.
83. Impact: With Third Country status for Horizon 2020, UK researchers would be disincentized from joining Horizon 2020 consortia and would lose out on the collaboration opportunities.
84. Mitigation measure: Ensure that UK participation in Horizon 2020 and future framework programmes is maintained.

July 2016