both goals and execution, is an open question. However, proposal-writing skill is certainly cultivated by the EU system, and those in command of the language needed for successful proposals can have a welcome role as partners, or consultants in the proposal phase.

Since running an EU project and preparing for the next one takes time, the leading experts who formulated the project in the first place may not be factually contributing to the project in any major way, nor be supervising inexperienced junior personnel carrying out the projected work. Instead, young researchers in need of guidance for their Ph.D. may find themselves left alone with the considerable responsibility of advancing the project from which they are paid, including managerial duties and the writing of deliverables whose sole merit and purpose is to fulfill what was promised in the DOW. From a scientific point of view, EU project deliverables are often of a sub-par standard with little of value to the student or to the scientific community. Since the project must be successful, there is severe temptation to willingly or innocently sell trivialities as breakthroughs, effectively installing and reinforcing a belief in the student and the interested public (such as via newspapers) that trivialities are major breakthroughs. The same can be observed for the prototypes that are important as “proofs-of-concept” and means to “transfer knowledge” from research to industry, which are often of low quality and designed only to survive a single, superficial Commission expert review. Thus, EU projects may seem not to contribute to develop scientific attitude, conduct and practice in the Ph.D. student. A more experienced postdoctoral researcher may likewise be left to herself with the day-to-day running of EU projects without having enough time to concentrate on the research and lasting results that will be needed to eventually secure a permanent position.

The role of the industrial partner
in an EU project is sometimes that of
a peer, sometimes that of an advisor,
sometimes of a provider (in the case of
high-performance computing: of ac-
cess to technologies), but often that of
a politically necessary appendix. Espe-
cially SMEs can be as dependent on the
EU funding as small university groups,
but may not have the capabilities and
investigated and the kind of projects
that may receive what kind of funding
under which conditions. The calls ask
for novelty, excellence, radicalism and
breakthroughsa and also outline the
composition of eligible consortia that
will consist of “leading experts” from
European university research groups
and (often, but not in all call types)
European industry or business, pref-
erably small and medium-sized enter-
prises (so-called SMEs). Funded proj-
ects typically run for three years, and
are expected to contribute to education
by producing excellent, new Ph.D.’s for
the European workforce. Exploitation
and dissemination are of the utmost
importance to demonstrate uptake
and impact. Progress is documented
in extensive “deliverables” and “proto-
types,” and constantly monitored and
assessed by EU “experts.” Deviation
from work plan is an exception and
needs to be negotiated. In not-so-large
EU projects, five to 10 groups can be
involved, each with a number of peo-
ple that meet as a whole or in smaller
groups several times a year. As part of
the dissemination activities it is im-
portant for all consortium members to
show regular presence at various asso-
ciated, often self-initiated workshops
and conferences, including meetings
and workshops of other projects; high
publication output is encouraged.

There are several points to stress.
First, research areas are determined
extrinsically by the European Com-
mission (in consultation with “lead-
ing experts”) which is in itself not an
intellectually contributing peer of the
scientific (parallel computing) com-
munity and therefore only in an in-
direct, not independent position to
define scientific research agenda.
Second, projects are to be tightly man-
aged, documented, and overseen by
the appointed Commission experts.
Third, project proposals themselves,
which after approval turn into detailed
“Descriptions Of Work” (DOW: work-
packages, which deliverables when,
“milestones,” month-by-month work,
exploitation and dissemination plans),
a Bertrand Meyer addressed this paradigm-shift
mania and its effects on scientific attitude in
his “Long Live Incremental Research” blog
posting, see http://bit.ly/2dFOV75; prose from
recent FET Open calls shows how up to date
this still is.
are themselves considerable pieces
of work (easily 50 or more pages) tak-
ing weeks of intense effort to prepare.
Fourth, dissemination of results and
industrial exploitation are key factors
in successful proposals and projects.
Now, it is doubtful whether tru-
ly groundbreaking research can be
planned as envisaged by the Commis-
sion managers and thrive under the
EU project conditions; but “normal
science” is rarely called for. The effort
in proposal writing is wasted (unless
recycled) if a project is not funded,
which lead proposals to promise what
is called for, namely a meticulously
documented, steady flow of high-qual-
ity breakthroughs that can readily be
taken up by industry. And although
projects can have large, total volume
in terms of money and personnel, the
managerial overhead and enforced geo-
graphical and thematic spread among
consortium members in reality means
that time and personnel per group is
often too small to pursue serious and
realistic research. Fortunately, since
projects define their own “verifiable
success criteria” and “key performance
indicators,” success can nevertheless
be guaranteed, either because results
to be produced were safely known in
advance, and therefore per definition
not groundbreaking, or because goals,
despite the inflated language, are set
so low or made so vague that failure is
impossible by design, as long as deliv-
erables are delivered, milestones met,
prototypes produced, workshops and
dissemination activities organized, and
consortium management business at-
tended to. Whether proposers actually
believe what they propose, regarding
It is doubtful whether
truly groundbreaking
research can be
planned as envisioned
by the Commission
managers and
thrive under the
EU project conditions.