5 ms·

> And it will be able to recoup funding if U.K. scientists receive “significantly less money” than the U.K.’s annual contribution, according to the government’s

> And it will be able to recoup funding if U.K. scientists receive “significantly less money” than the U.K.’s annual contribution, according to the government’s announcement Has the UK managed to negotiate another special treatment (like when it had its 'discount' when an EU member) to ensure that it can only benefit from the scheme? If so, that sounds like a good deal.

PeterStuer 3y ago
All members closely track their in/out on the framework programs. This is nothing new.
etiennebausson 3y ago
That doesn't mean they can only benefit from it, it mean they can't be completely shafted. If they get 2.4~2.5 Billions every year, or a year at 2.8 followed by a 2.1, it would be less, but not significantly less (the law of average make this last option a lot less likely). The idea of the program is not to get all the money attributed to your country, I imagine the interest is also to pool specialist to evaluate the grant requests. In particular in small countries that just don't have enough people to have available specialists for everything.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  'significantly' is obviously a weasel word that is opened to further arguments, and I suspect it was added on purpose so that both parties can claim 'victory'. Your comment is your personal interpretation, for instance. I could also say that if I paid 2.5 billions in and only got 2.1 billions out over a single year that is significantly less (16%) so I demand a refund or guaranteed extra funding to make it up the following year. > The idea of the program is not to get all the money attributed to your country Whatever the idea of the program is, the aim of the UK seems not to be a constant net contributor, i.e. to ensure that on average it receives at least as much as it contributes, which was also the aim of various 'discounts' it got within the EU.
  - RugnirViking 3y ago
    > 'significantly' is obviously a weasel word that is opened to further arguments This is from the government announcement. I am 99.9% sure that when you read the actual text of the agreement there will be a process with exact cutoffs with the scenario laid out for how the funding would be recouped, and by whom.
throwbadubadu 3y ago
No lol why? Despair on the one and pitifulness on the other side..
rwmj 3y ago
New Zealand also joined a couple of months ago and got an extremely discounted rate. See the details in this article: https://sciencebusiness.net/news/horizon-europe/eu-and-new-zealand-sign-horizon-europe-deal-new-association-details-emerge https://sciencebusiness.net/news/horizon-europe/eu-and-new-z...
dukeyukey 3y ago
As much as Brits like to denigrate the country, the UK outperforms most of it's neighbours in science and technology. Rejoining Horizon is a boon for European science even if the UK is a net benefactor.
- tokai 3y ago
  You have any data on that? Reading reports on European research output UK is nothing special. Edit: those corrupt uni ranking lists mean nothing.
  - dukeyukey 3y ago
    Life Sciences Nature Index: https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news/top-ten-countries-dominate-natural-sciences-research-twenty-nineteen https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news/top-ten-countries-d... Jounal output: https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?order=itp&ord=desc&year=2020 https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?order=itp&ord=desc... University rankings (7 out of 10 in Europe, 3 out of 10 worldwide): https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-europe https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universiti...
  - arrowsmith 3y ago
    According to the US News "Best Global Universities" report [0], which ranks universities for their "academic research performance and their global and regional reputations", the UK has 4 universities (Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, Imperial) in the global top 20. The rest of Europe has zero. Alternatively, the UK has 6 universities in the global top 40, while the rest of Europe has two (one in the EU, one in Switzerland.) This isn't new. The British higher education sector has been a world leader for a long, long time. And that's despite the last few decades of funding cuts and declining educational standards - I can only imagine where we'd be in a more sensible timeline. [0] https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/search https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/se...
    - sveme 3y ago
      One problem with this is that research on the continent is often done by research organisations that aren't covered by these assessments. Max Planck and Leibniz in Germany, CNRS, Institut Pasteur in France, EMBL, EBI, ESO etc. as European research institutes (EBI is interestingly in the UK). So if you look at research, you cannot just look at universities.
vidarh 3y ago
Article 16, section 5 of EU Regulation 2021/695 implementing the scheme: "The conditions determining the level of financial contribution shall ensure a regular automatic correction of any significant imbalance compared to the amount that entities established in the associated country receive through participation in the Programme, taking into account the costs in the management, execution and operation of the Programme. The allocation of the financial contributions shall take into account the level of participation of the legal entities of the associated countries in each part of the Programme." So this sounds at most like a clarification of the rules expected in any association agreement for Horizon.

PeterStuer 3y ago

All members closely track their in/out on the framework programs. This is nothing new.

etiennebausson 3y ago

That doesn't mean they can only benefit from it, it mean they can't be completely shafted. If they get 2.4~2.5 Billions every year, or a year at 2.8 followed by a 2.1, it would be less, but not significantly less (the law of average make this last option a lot less likely). The idea of the program is not to get all the money attributed to your country, I imagine the interest is also to pool specialist to evaluate the grant requests. In particular in small countries that just don't have enough people to have available specialists for everything.

mytailorisrich 3y ago
'significantly' is obviously a weasel word that is opened to further arguments, and I suspect it was added on purpose so that both parties can claim 'victory'. Your comment is your personal interpretation, for instance. I could also say that if I paid 2.5 billions in and only got 2.1 billions out over a single year that is significantly less (16%) so I demand a refund or guaranteed extra funding to make it up the following year. > The idea of the program is not to get all the money attributed to your country Whatever the idea of the program is, the aim of the UK seems not to be a constant net contributor, i.e. to ensure that on average it receives at least as much as it contributes, which was also the aim of various 'discounts' it got within the EU.
- RugnirViking 3y ago
  > 'significantly' is obviously a weasel word that is opened to further arguments This is from the government announcement. I am 99.9% sure that when you read the actual text of the agreement there will be a process with exact cutoffs with the scenario laid out for how the funding would be recouped, and by whom.

throwbadubadu 3y ago

No lol why? Despair on the one and pitifulness on the other side..

rwmj 3y ago

New Zealand also joined a couple of months ago and got an extremely discounted rate. See the details in this article: https://sciencebusiness.net/news/horizon-europe/eu-and-new-zealand-sign-horizon-europe-deal-new-association-details-emerge https://sciencebusiness.net/news/horizon-europe/eu-and-new-z...

dukeyukey 3y ago

As much as Brits like to denigrate the country, the UK outperforms most of it's neighbours in science and technology. Rejoining Horizon is a boon for European science even if the UK is a net benefactor.

tokai 3y ago
You have any data on that? Reading reports on European research output UK is nothing special. Edit: those corrupt uni ranking lists mean nothing.
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  Life Sciences Nature Index: https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news/top-ten-countries-dominate-natural-sciences-research-twenty-nineteen https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news/top-ten-countries-d... Jounal output: https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?order=itp&ord=desc&year=2020 https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?order=itp&ord=desc... University rankings (7 out of 10 in Europe, 3 out of 10 worldwide): https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-europe https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universiti...
- arrowsmith 3y ago
  According to the US News "Best Global Universities" report [0], which ranks universities for their "academic research performance and their global and regional reputations", the UK has 4 universities (Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, Imperial) in the global top 20. The rest of Europe has zero. Alternatively, the UK has 6 universities in the global top 40, while the rest of Europe has two (one in the EU, one in Switzerland.) This isn't new. The British higher education sector has been a world leader for a long, long time. And that's despite the last few decades of funding cuts and declining educational standards - I can only imagine where we'd be in a more sensible timeline. [0] https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/search https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/se...
  - sveme 3y ago
    One problem with this is that research on the continent is often done by research organisations that aren't covered by these assessments. Max Planck and Leibniz in Germany, CNRS, Institut Pasteur in France, EMBL, EBI, ESO etc. as European research institutes (EBI is interestingly in the UK). So if you look at research, you cannot just look at universities.

vidarh 3y ago

Article 16, section 5 of EU Regulation 2021/695 implementing the scheme: "The conditions determining the level of financial contribution shall ensure a regular automatic correction of any significant imbalance compared to the amount that entities established in the associated country receive through participation in the Programme, taking into account the costs in the management, execution and operation of the Programme. The allocation of the financial contributions shall take into account the level of participation of the legal entities of the associated countries in each part of the Programme." So this sounds at most like a clarification of the rules expected in any association agreement for Horizon.