Paolo Manzelli
Director of LRE/EGO-CreaNet – University of Florence
As a matter of facts I observe that the Calls guidelines are very standardized , and this do not get effective possibilities to a creative quality of the research.
Because the certainty is basically an option useful to do not risk money, so that the EU Community prefere a standardized procedure of evaluation.
The uncertainty is an inherent problem of advanced science integration, that can be resolved only during the investigative project , I suspect that the standardized regulatory EU evaluation based on "peer to peer" system , some times result too much based on traditional disciplins and also within basic point of view of evaluators , and this method in most cases produces a vilification of advanced research proposals instead of an effective evaluation of innovation and creativity of the projects.
I think that Europe for the 7 FP needs of a new regulatory paradigm and guidelines, because the KISS methodology ( KEY ELEMENT SIMPLE AND STUPID) that proposers need to utilise in the 6FP for presenting a succesful proposal to the call, it is becoming more usefull for any expert Agency, using an standardized procedures,like copy and glue from the guidelines to present junk science programs, obtain preferentially a good evaluation from a peer review , because this procedure asks for an immediate evidence and secure results based on the existing knowledge fixed in the mind of the general public.
The difficulty to get a winning EU project is growth up with the enlargement of Europe to 25 Countries
