From: Denis-Didier.Rousseau@uni-bayreuth.de
To: <Eystein.Jansen@geo.uib.no>, <Imprint-partner@bjerknes.uib.no>
Subject: [Fwd: RE: commission performance alpha 5]
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 04:48:04 +0200 (MEST)

Dear all IMPRINT colleagues,
Being away from Europe, this was a very bad news that I got this morning
listening about the rejection of IMPRINT. Eystein did a great job by being
able to gather the European paleo community under a common umbrella and he
desereves a lot of our consideration.
Concerning now the review process, I have been involved several times in
Brussels and I have been able to see the evolution of the evaluating panel
session after session.

I am not please with this evaluation and I already addressed my comments
to Andre Berger. It is not normal that entering the room where you are
supposed to meet the other "panelists" you would not know those who are
supposed to be representative of your community, this is my first comment.

Second, the way the referees are selected is somehow strange and involve a
political issue which is very sensitive as I'm sure you will understand
that a country fair representation is not enough in our field which better
involves expertise.

Third and last, having set a consortium of the leading Europe institutions
and scientists, how can you expect appropriate expertise? I have been
approached to join the evaluating panel but refused as being an IMPRINT
member to respect some ethic. If, what I wish, we all didi that way, they
one can sincerely expect the worst as I already experienced in a recent
past.

Forth, complaining to the commission is a waste of time as these
administrative people, even if this is you right, will always provide you
with arguments to justify the decision. I complain once to the director of
the programme who just retun me that the referees of my proposal were
relevant, what I know was not the case unfortunately. However I totally
support the initiative to question the commission on the way the
evaluations are performed, but also how the referees are selected.

Fifth, you all are waiting for the reviews. I agree with Rainer that the
comments that are provided are useless and in somehow offending the PIs.
This is mostly due to the review process and this again must be changed.
Furthermore what we receive is the consensus report which passed in the
European officers hands to be cleaned of any agressive sentences or words,
and must remain politically correct. So effectively these reports are
useless. It would be interesting to get also the individual reports on
which the consensus one has been established and would better show the
real work of every referee, and we would be very surprised sometimes.

Finaly to follow Thomas, Rainer and Eric, I would suggest to continue what
has been launched with IMPRINT which is to my sense unique in gathering
all the European paleo community under the same umbrella. May be the
proposal was too broad, but this was following the commission's aim. The
"Millenium" proposal benefited of several consecutive EU supports which
apparently helped a lot. Their lobbying seem to have ben very efficient,
not only in Brussels but in the journals and meetings. The Utrecht
initiative was a good one which must stop today. We have the opportunity
to gather regularly at least once during the EGU that we all are
attending, why not using such opportunity to reinforce the initiative
during such meeting?

All the very best to all of you

cheers

denis



-------- Urspr&uuml;ngliche Nachricht --------
Betreff: RE: commission performance alpha 5
Von: "Polychronis Tzedakis" <P.C.Tzedakis@leeds.ac.uk>
Datum: Mit, 11.05.2005, 17:25
An: "Rainer Zahn" <rainer.zahn@uab.es>,
         "Thomas Stocker" <stocker@climate.unibe.ch>,
         "Atte Korhola" <atte.korhola@helsinki.fi>

Dear all,
First of all a big hand for Eystein and all those who put in so much
time into this task. Very disheartening to hear the outcome.

I have muych sympathy with what Rainer Zahn has said, especially on the
Brussels front and the client relationships that are cultivated with EU
officials.

I think that in addition to a letter to the EU, I would suggest that
perhaps an editorial in NAture or something similar, outlining the
growing degree of scepticism amongst scientists regarding the
transparency of the EU funding process might be in order.

Chronis Tzedakis


-----Original Message-----
From:	Rainer Zahn [mailto:rainer.zahn@uab.es]
Sent:	Wed 5/11/2005 2:47 PM
To:	Thomas Stocker; Atte Korhola
Cc:	Eystein.Jansen@geo.uib.no; Imprint-partner@bjerknes.uib.no;
beatriz.balino@bjerknes.uib.no; atle.nesje@geo.uib.no;
oyvind.lie@geo.uib.no; john.birks@bio.uib.no;
Carin.Andersson@bjerknes.uib.no; trond.dokken@bjerknes.uib.no;
ulysses.ninnemann@geo.uib.no; Astrid.Bardgard@fa.uib.no;
richard.telford@bjerknes.uib.no Subject:	commission performance alpha 5

dear Eystein, dear Imprint consortium,

I am sure I will not make many friends with what follows below. Firstly,
it  surely is sad and disheartening to see our proposal going down. and
there  are many issues involved some of which have been named in the
recent  emails. But then there are those issues left that have not been
named but  which I consider relevant if we are to make progress on the
EU FWP front.  Some of these issues may and will touch a personal nerve
here and there,  but let's face some of the unpleasant realities much
rather than sitting  back and keeping going with business as usual, a
business that soon may go  out of existence.

First, I am not convinced that Imprint was the best we could have done.
On  my side I was surprised to no small extent during our London meeting
to see  that those from the modeling community and other groups present
obviously  had no idea why our palaeo-component (a derivative of the
planned ICON IP)  was part of Imprint, and they were not overly
favourable to listen and  expand their views. So in a sense, even within
our own consortium there  was, perhaps still is a lack of insight and
understanding as to what a  palaeo-component is about and will have to
offer. In the end I am now left  with the impression that ICON would
have stood a good chance to survive on  its own.

Second, as a member of the Imprint consortium I still find it difficult
today to sort through this proposal and its various components, tasks,
topics, milestones, deliverables etc. Which only tells me how ever so
more  difficult it must have been for outsiders i.e., reviewers to sift
through  the bits and pieces and comprehend what this is about. But I
also feel that  this has to do with the concept of IPs at large as it is
not an easy task  to compose an IP consortium of the dimension and wide
range of expertise  envisioned by the commission. The outcome of the
whole process in my view  confirms the notion that the concept of IPs
has fundamentally (and to a  large degree predictably) failed. This
concept reflects a substantial lack  of insight on the side of those who
were, presumably still are involved in  designing research policies in
the commission about what science is about  and how it works. Those
parties should not be where they are, and they  certainly should not be
involved in setting up FWP7

This is what I have to say about our proposal.

As for the Commission's performance it is not my impression they are
living  up to their own standards that they have set up for the quality
of  proposals requested. In particular the proposal evaluation process
is  ridiculous and lacks any degree of substance. For instance, the
reviews  that I did receive in response to my RTN proposal (submitted
last year) are  mediocre at best, meaningless and useless in detail,
beyond anything I  would consider expert insight, simply a waste of time
and tax payers'  money. They are an insult to anybody who did contribute
to and put work and  effort into that proposal. As for the Impront
proposal we now are faced  with the prospect that the only IP proposal,
Millennium, that is competing  with Imprint from the outset was received
more favourably than our own  proposal. With this I could live were it
not for the fact that in  Millennium everything is named as a strategy
and work plan that we were  being advised to not do. This speaks a
language of its own and to me  reflects a fundamental lack of
enthusiasm, professionalism and competence  with those who give advice
and organize the evaluation process. Obviously,  the vision set out by
our programme manager(s) never made it to the  reviewers who seemed to
follow quite different guidelines, if any.

Lastly, from what I can see around me, particularly in the Mediterranean
 club, it appears more important and beneficial to spend time in
Brussels  wiping door handles and leaving a professorial - directorial
impression  rather than composing upbeat cutting edge science proposals.
It is ever so  disheartening that within the FWP our success seems to
depend more on who  we know than the quality we present. Last time when
programme managerial  posts in the commission were reshuffled the
primary concern around here was  that "we now lose our contacts". This
is wrong, a disgrace to our community.

I have had a few conversations with colleagues who were partners in EU
proposals, both successful ones and ones that were rejected. From these
conversations I sense a growing degree of tiredness about EU science
policy  and more so, about the chaotic way proposals are being solicited
and then  turned down on grounds that so very obviously have nothing to
do with the  science presented. There is also the notion that within the
commission  climate and paleo-work has fallen from grace, for reasons
not known to  many. Which brings me back to the point that perhaps we do
not have the  right programme managers in place to fend our cause.

I am prepared to write a firm letter to the commission, or to contribute
to  such letter, about the issues impinging on the poor performance of
the  commision. I rather do that before turning entirely into a
full-grown  Eurosceptic.

Rainer



    Rainer Zahn, Professor de Recerca
    Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, ICREA
  i Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
    Institut de Ciencia i Tecnologia Ambientals
    Edifici Cn - Campus UAB
    E-08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola), Spain

    Phone: +34 - 93 581 4219
      Fax: +34 - 93 581 3331
    email: rainer.zahn@uab.es, rainer.zahn@icrea.es
      <http://www.icrea.es/pag.asp?id=Rainer.Zahn>http://www.icrea.es/pag.asp?id=Rainer.Zahn




