But relocation plans considered ‘daydreaming’ by observers
The European Institute of Innovation and Technology headquarters should be moved to a more visible location, according to recommendations by a member of the Parliament’s research committee, who wants the institution to be “rethought”.
In her draft report on the EIT’s Strategic Innovation Agenda, Marisa Matias, an MEP from the Portuguese left block, says the young EU institute needs larger, more prominent premises to improve international awareness of its work. “To be seen by the world as a global player in its field, absolutely committed to excellence, the EIT must have excellent premises,” Matias writes.
This plan is unlikely to go through, however, and has been dismissed by other MEPs and scientists. Peter Tindemans, secretary-general of the grassroots researchers’ organisation Euroscience, says that the proposal seems to be a daydream, and an attempt by the author to reopen discussions on the institute’s fundamental role and location.
“There will be no appetite, I guess, among member states to go that way,” Tindemans told Research Europe. In particular Hungary, which was picked to host the EIT through a bidding process in 2008, would no doubt show fierce opposition to the move, he adds.
Yet the MEP’s proposal shows that, four years after being set up, the EIT is still struggling to carve out its identity, as many scientists and politicians appear uncertain about the institute’s role and merit. Originally promoted by Commission president José Manuel Barroso as Europe’s answer to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the EIT is now focusing on thematic collaborations of businesses, research organisations and education institutions, known as Knowledge and Innovation Communities.
Matias says that the EIT should beef up its profile as an actual institute that hosts and organises training courses and conferences. But Mary Ritter, an immunology professor at Imperial College London and head of the EIT’s Climate-KIC, says that the EIT’s work is primarily done through its local collaborations. “There is more to EIT than its HQ. Much is done through the KICs across Europe right now,” Ritter said.
Tindemans agrees with Ritter that moving the headquarters would have little impact, apart from disrupting the institute’s work. “[The notion of creating] a European MIT] completely disregards…Karolinska, for example, and has been laughed at.”
Research Europe contacted the EIT, which declined to comment. But Mary Ritter, an immunology professor at Imperial College London and head of the EIT’s Climate-KIC, agreed with Tindemans that moving the headquarters would have little impact, apart from disrupting the institute’s work. “Much is done through the KICs across Europe right now,” Ritter said.
Matias is aware that her suggestions will stir up a “big fight”, but says a rethink of the EIT’s role is necessary before it expands. “We have plenty of time to think about things strategically,” she says. “The EIT was meant to be big but has become small, now the European Commission is trying to push for it to become big again.” The Commission has proposed a steep budget increase for the institute—from €309 million in 2008-13 to about €3 billion in 2014‑20.
There is another driving force behind Matias’ idea. She says if the EIT moves to the Parliament’s Strasbourg buildings, this would allow the Parliament to meet only in Brussels and scrap its much-criticised monthly round trip to Strasbourg.
However, the proposal has been lambasted by France’s Jean-Pierre Audy, a centre-right MEP, who called the idea “grotesque” during a discussion of the report at the Parliament’s Industry, Research and Energy Committee on 18 June.
The report is a response to the Commission’s proposal for the EIT’s Strategic Innovation Agenda in Horizon 2020. Matias’ suggestions need to be approved by the Itre committee and the whole Parliament, before being discussed with the Council of Ministers.