Markáætlun 2009–2015

As most readers of this blog know already, the 10 proposals that will get to submit full applications for the Markáætlun 2009–2015 (centres of excellence and research clusters) were selected on June 24, see http://rannis.is/files/Markáætlun%20fréttatiltkynning%201juli08%202utg_879420156.pdf for the list. 

Let me start by congratulating the colleagues who won the first round of the lottery, some of whom are within my own school and whose research standing definitely deserves the funding that the establishment of a centre of excellence might give them. 

When the decision was made, I was busy with some summer-term teaching and helping put the finishing touches to the organization of ICALP 2008 and its 12 satellite events. I was therefore unable to comment on the decision on this blog. (This was probably for the best since I was not overly happy at that time .) I was also quite sure that others would post comments on the selection on this blog as well as on others. It now seems that I was wrong; so, even if this is by now a "cold case" (to paraphrase the title of a TV series), it might be worthwhile for me to pen down a couple of considerations as "community service".

Let me start by saying that it would be useful to compare what went on here in Iceland with the structures and methods for the establishment of centres of excellence elsewhere in the Nordic countries. To my mind, an outstanding example of best practice is given by the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF, http://www.dg.dk/), which has been active in supporting centres of excellence since 1991 and has recently started high-profile visiting professor programmes. (I may be wrong, but I believe that this is the oldest such institution in the Nordic countries.) Anna Ingólfsdóttir and I were lucky to be members of one DNRF centre, which was funded from 1994 till 2006 and turned Denmark into a hotbed for research and doctoral education in theoretical computer science.

The short strategy statement for DNRF (http://www.dg.dk/strategidefault_eng.htm) describes in a nutshell what a foundation promoting centres of excellence should focus on:

Denmark needs excellent researchers and research leaders who can inspire the Danish research environments with regards to succeeding in the international research community. The Foundation's Centre Leaders belong to the vanguard within their respective fields and have the necessary international clout to play this part. 

The Foundation supports the elite within Danish research. The strategy of the Foundation is to invest in long-term research endeavours, mainly Centres of Excellence that run for 5-10 year periods.

The Foundation has employed this strategy since the beginning of the 1990's and it has been very successful: The Centres of Excellence have given Danish research an invaluable boost and the Foundation Centre of Excellence model is emulated many places – not least by the European Research Council, ERC.

In its work at lifting Danish research, the Board focuses on a variety of intermediate aims, among others to find and promote outstanding young researchers, and to further the internationalisation of the Danish research environments.

The complete strategy document (in Danish) has more detail and is available at http://www.dg.dk/PDF-dokumenter/DG's%20strategi.pdf for those who want to peruse it.  

Here is an excerpt that highlights what they do right (at least IMHO), and what might have been overlooked here (the emphasis is mine):

 

Fondens formål er, jf. lovgrundlaget, at styrke Danmarks forskningsmæssige udviklingsevne ved at finansiere enestående grundforskning på internationalt niveau.

Fonden
    - støtter eliten i dansk grundforskning med langsigtede satsninger ved dannelse af centres of excellence
    - opfanger vækstlagene i dansk forskning med vægt på ambitiøse og grænseoverskridende
 projekter
    - støtter forskningsprogrammer med multidisciplinær tilgang til løsning af komplekse problemer
    - fremmer internationalisering af danske forskningsmiljøer
    - skaber grupperinger af høj international kvalitet, der kan tjene som grundlag for internationale
        forskerskoler
    - gør grundforskning synlig og anerkendt

Fonden har for de kommende år valgt at vægte følgende dimensioner i sit arbejde:
    a) Fokus på grundforskning med højt ambitionsniveau og risikovillighed, bl.a. som grundlag for
        stærke forskeruddannelser
    b) Internationalisering af danske forskningsmiljøer
    c) Internationalt samarbejde baseret på bilaterale aftaler med stærke forskningsnationer
    d) Intensiveret samspil med andre nationale offentlige råd, institutioner, fonde eller virksomheder
    e) Kvalitetssikring i bedømmelsesprocessen
    f) Synliggørelse og formidling

.......

Ad e) Kvalitetssikring i bedømmelsesprocessen

Fondens kvalitetskrav er primært defineret ud fra kvalitetskriterier som problemvalg, metode og ansøger(e)s meritter (cv og publikationsliste). Sekundære kriterier inddrages, når den videnskabelige kvalitet er bedømt. Sådanne kriterier er organisatoriske og ledelsesmæssige aspekter, miljøskabende dimensioner samt økonomiske, formidlings- og uddannelsesmæssige aspekter foruden bredere samfundsmæssig relevans.

Det er fondens opfattelse, at videnskabelig excellence målt med international målestok fortsat vil være grundlæggende for sikring af god og troværdig ny vidensproduktion. .......

Fonden anvender i udstrakt grad internationalt peer review ved evaluering af ansøgninger. Peer review har sine svagheder – men er fortsat den mindst dårlige metode. Fonden vil i de kommende år aktivt følge og deltage i den internationale debat om, hvordan peer reviews kan styrkes.

As the above text makes clear, the selection criteria are scientific, rely on peer-review and measure the quality of the applications/applicants by using the standards of the international scientific community. Internationalization of the local research environment is also an important keyword. This is what Rannis is doing when handing out research grants, and I sincerely hope that this is what was done and will be done for the substantially larger amounts of funding that will be handed out to centres of excellence. I believe that anything else ought to be considered simply unacceptable by society at large. 

 

I wish good luck to the colleagues who are busy preparing the full applications for centres of excellence that they will have to deliver in two months' time. To those who are wondering what level of scientific activity they will have to exhibit in order to justify the funding they might receive, let me point out the third annual report of ICE-TCS. Our centre has no specific centre-building funding, but it operates at a standard that I am sure the new richly-funded centres of excellence will want to emulate. (Several ICALP 2008 participants asked us what we will do when the funding for ICE-TCS runs out. They were taken aback by our answer to the effect that we operate without funding .)

 

I wish the new centres the best of luck, and I am looking forward to seeing the scientific results of Iceland's investment in them. 

 

 

Athugasemdir

[Arnar Pálsson, 11.8.2008 kl. 09:04]

Luca

Again you summarize the situation nicely. The markáætlun - centers of excellence struck us as bizzare from the beginning and the shortlist was notably short on biological, physical and mathematical sciences. 

Interstingly these are the core sciences for innovation and technological breakthroughs, and with a very respectable record for peer-reviewed papers. 

Of course we congratulate our colleges, who were so excellent at playing the "buzzword, corporate-collaboration, cultural extension" game. 

[Indriði H. Indriðason, 18.8.2008 kl. 18:52]

I also had some reservations about the centers of excellence when it was announced and I agree with Luca about the criteria that should be applied to the applicants. 

However, about the shortlist I can't see how claims that it it is "notably short on biological, physical and mathematical sciences" as Arnar claims can be substantiated. It strikes me that to make such a claim we need precisely the type of information used to evaluate the candidates, i.e., information about how successful as researchers the applicants are.  Such information is, of course, difficult to compare across fields where standards of successful output vary greatly.  In the absence of such information and standards it seems the best we can do is to assume that talent is equally distributed across different fields and consider whether success rates differ across fields.  

 However, as far as I can tell, Rannis doesn't release information about unsuccessful proposals.  Thus, there is no way of assessing what sort of standards have been applied or whether each field gets its 'fair' share.  I contacted Rannis about this a couple of years back and was told this information couldn't be released as it was matter of privacy.  In which case, I guess we should also keep the identity of the successful candidates secret?  At any rate, my point is that there needs to be a far greater degree of transparency in Rannis's procedures.

And Arnar, while I suspect we largely share opinions about most of these issues, I have to say that I don't know what you mean by "...and with a very respectable record for peer-reviewed papers."  i) in what sense is it respectable? and ii) should I take it to imply that the other sciences don't?

[Arnar Pálsson, 2.9.2008 kl. 12:08]

IHI

I know through the grapewire or direct involvement that several biology oriented applications were sent in. Of course my statement needs hard data better support, though I am not to optimistic about Rannis disclosing all applications.

To clarify,  "respectable record" means yes, a substantial number of peer reviewed articles, in journals with high ISI impact factors. The intention was not to belittle the efforts of other disciplines, just to point out that biological sciences in Iceland have a strong tradition in basic research, that the scientists are pushing volumes out good papers and training excellent scientist through their graduate programs. And therefore it struck me as odd that no application for centers of excellence in this field made the shortlist.

[Indriði H. Indriðason, 2.9.2008 kl. 12:22]

AP

after your comments it may sound like I was doubting the respectable record of these department in Iceland...  but the reason I asked was that your initial comment sounded like a general statement about these fields.  At any rate, it all makes more sense to me now.