european research and innovation in materials science...
TRANSCRIPT
of Research Topics
European Research and Innovationin Materials Science and Engineering:
PrioritisationTowards a
Report from the MaterialsSummit in Brussels23 May 2013
Research and Innovation
EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDirectorate-General for Research and InnovationDirectorate G – Industrial TechnologiesUnit G3 – Materials
E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]
Contact: Dr Marcin SadowskiE-mail: [email protected]
European CommissionB-1049 Brussels
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate General for Research and Innovation2013
Towards a Prioritisationof Research Topics
Report from the Materials Summitin Brussels, 23 May 2013
European Research and Innovation in Materials Science and Engineering:
LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.
The views expressed in this publication, as well as the information included in it, do not necessarily reflect the opinion or position of the European Commission and in no way commit the institution.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013
ISBN 978-92-79-31152-9Doi 10.2777/2915
© European Union, 2013
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Cover images: © antishock, #47240386, 2013. Source: Fotolia.com
EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed
Contents
Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[6]
Main conclusions from the previous Materials Summits ……………………………………………….[7]
Instruments …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[8]
Possible “Champions” ……………………………………………………………………………………………………[11]
Annexes …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[14]
Agenda of the Materials Summit ………………………………………………………………………………….[15]
List of participants adopting this report…………………………………………………………………………[16]
Members of the Programme Committee (observers) ………………………………………………….[16]
Participants from the European Commission ……………………………………………………………….[17]
Summary
The third Materials Summit brought together representatives of main industrial and research stakeholders in materials science and engineering. This time we also had the honour of hosting representatives from Member States as observers, upon request of the Programme Committee in the “NMP configuration” as established for the EU 7th Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (FP7). Whereas the first Summit had a constitutive character and the second one defined ideas and proposals for the optimal features for supporting materials research and innovation at Community level, the third Summit discussed more in detail the possible use of diverse instruments and tried to extract possible “champions”, i.e. topics that could represent examples of areas of research and innovation which would give the best value of working at the EU level in the immediate future.
To set the scene, the Summit opened with introductory presentations on the portfolio of materials research and innovation topics in FP7, lessons learned from a specific call for projects on the way from research to innovation, perspectives for materials research in Horizon 2020 as proposed by the European Commission, a presentation of the FET (Future Emerging Technologies) scheme as proposed for Horizon 2020, and the NanoFutures roadmap, as reported in the agenda.
It was acknowledged that the minutes from the previous Materials Summits were uploaded on the Materials Blog and opened for input. Many inputs were received from associations, companies and researchers. A main recommendation for the future has been to concentrate on areas of research and innovation where materials are the key factor for success, where the market is growing or a high-value or strategic niche, and where “things will happen in Europe”.
Main conclusions from the previous Materials Summits The first Materials Summit in October 2010 came to the conclusion that materials development can most effectively be performed in a hybrid matrix working model, with applications-driven research, technological development and innovation (R&D&I) along the vertical columns (“from ideas to applications”) and horizontal cross-cutting multi-application multi-disciplinary research activities. A 3-stage innovation trajectory was suggested as a model. The first stage – basic research - is provided by the universities, with support from the European Research Council (ERC) and the Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) programme. In the second stage the R&D results are transformed into materials technologies applicable in an industrial environment; this activity could be best carried out in dedicated multi-disciplinary infrastructures capable of exploring different recipes in parallel and performing a first scale-up. The third stage, turning materials technology into real applications, is done within the relevant industry. With regard to grouping materials in the context of structuring research funding “functionality” was recognised as the most meaningful grouping criterion.
The second Materials Summit in September 2012 analysed and assessed the effectiveness of the support to materials research and innovation to date, and explored possible options for the future. The Summit concluded that to increase the effectiveness of the R&D&I activities a transition from project-driven to programme-driven support will be needed, and also a change of mind-set, from creating new materials to creating new solutions, with a focus on “materials for something” rather than on materials per se.
Basic research will still be required, excellence in research must continue to be promoted, but the Summit appreciated the fact that Horizon 2020 is moving towards industrial reality. Research focus should be on areas where Europe has strengths, and where there is likelihood that industrial production will take place in Europe. International cooperation must be encouraged to accelerate progress, but should be instrumental to enable “things to happen” in Europe.
The need for monitoring - a “control tower” in order to secure coherence, maximise impact and avoid gaps or duplications was highlighted, as well as the need to focus on “materials by design” and to include consideration of the end-of-life of the products/materials and all by-products.
Other recommendations were that coordination with Member States' and Associated Countries' activities should be boosted, the possible synergy with structural funds should be explored and roadmaps and foresight studies should be developed when realistically possible. The EC should test the use of all the instruments foreseen in the Horizon 2020 tool box for supporting materials R&D&I, such as grants, prizes, public procurement, public-public and public-private partnerships.
Instruments
The Commission proposal for Horizon 2020 was examined again and it was noted that materials science and engineering are present in all three pillars of Horizon 2020, ranging from fundamental and/or blue sky research to the applied and/or industry driven activities and to the development and deployment of advanced materials to cope with the identified societal challenges. The synergies with other schemes or mechanisms such as the European Research Council (ERC), Marie Skłodowska Curie fellowships, COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology), Joint Technology Initiatives (JTI) and Public Private Partnerships (PPP) and others, were highlighted. Possibilities of future possible cooperation with the structural funds were also mentioned.
The Summit encouraged being more incisive in fostering synergy with the Member States via all means. The definition of roadmaps was welcomed as they help concentrating efforts by public authorities, industry and academia. The SET-Plan (Strategic Energy Technology Plan) roadmap for the materials for energy application was again mentioned, the NanoFutures roadmap was presented and the Summit welcomed the Commission's intention to create two new roadmaps, on metallurgy and biomaterials for health applications, implementing a recommendation given by the Second Summit. More use of ERA-NETs or CO-FUND schemes was also encouraged, as this is a privileged way to profit from a real European Research Area (ERA) and help Member States align their own research strategies and funding allocations.
The Summit particularly welcomed the Commission proposal which, within Horizon 2020, foresees an opening of the FET scheme in order to encompass also materials science and engineering. In view of the proposed LEIT (Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technology) scheme, the Summit suggested the use of TRLs (Technology Readiness Levels) as one possible discriminating factor for vehiculating research proposals to one or the other scheme, e.g. up to 2 or 3 for FET and up to 5 or 6 (even 7 or 8 in special demonstration cases where conditions are ready for that) under LEIT, with due coherence in the possible percentage of financial support. Seamless continuity and synergy amongst the research supported and carried out under the three pillars of Horizon 2020 was recognised as being extremely beneficial for fostering progress in materials science and engineering, and was recommended.
There was however a warning against an excess of optimism concerning seamless support in the ideal linearity: ERC, FET, LEIT, to the societal challenges. It is not considered obvious that there will not be a gap between what is very new and supported by FET and what has an identified application and can be supported by LEIT. The classical matrix nature of materials innovation was mentioned again. On the one hand, the idea is that one should not look for solutions without a problem, and an alliance between academia and the industry should be in place before starting research; on the other hand, new materials with unpredicted properties can generate new applications and occasions of business. The Commission's ex-post assessment for SMEs for FP4, FP5 and FP6 was recalled. The report stated that in the participants’ view the main consortium management issues are the “quality of the co-operation within the project consortium’ and “support and information sharing among the projects partners” (60% of the citations, altogether) and that “support-related factors” were the most important success factor for the uptake of the results. With lateral thinking, the pilot call in FP7 to bring industrial designers and materials scientists together (in the creative
industries) was considered of great interest to develop out-of-the-box ideas and accelerate innovation.
The Commission was encouraged to publish a call for expression of interest in the future work programmes, whenever possible and appropriate, in order to stimulate and establish the interest of Europe's Regions to deploy technologies to be developed within Horizon 2020 “Materials”. The grantees should be made aware of such interests, and be invited to get in contact with the concerned managing authorities at national or regional level. This could allow a mobilisation of structural funds according to their proper modalities and timing, and according to the expressed priorities that will be reflected in their Operational Programmes in the context of their proper Smart Specialisation strategies. Some examples of good practices, mechanisms of combining funding from framework programmes and structural funds were mentioned. Regarding the possible role of the Regions, also the Public Procurement scheme (in two different configurations, Pre-Commercial Procurement – PCP, and Public Procurement of Innovative Solutions - PPI) was considered to be particularly suitable for the use of structural funds with a “pull” effect in supporting demand-side innovation, especially in sectors that have an important share of public (e.g. health, construction, etc.) investment and can have a high societal impact.
Concerning translating research results into innovation: the pilot approach with an FP7 call in the 2013 work programme was found to be appealing and effective. The Commission was encouraged to repeat it, and possibly to hold a prior workshop in order design to the optimal features.
It was considered that applied research may also need fundamental/basic elements, but not with a “blue sky” character. Future possible LEIT projects should have a strategy for entering the market, as far as possible.
The use of prizes, aside from the more widespread grants, has been encouraged, in particular for a pilot call for new materials for the creative industry, bringing together materials scientists and product designers.
Where applicable, dedicated schemes such as the JTI (e.g. for hydrogen and fuel cells), or the PPPs and ad-hoc schemes such as the EMRP (European Metrology Research Programme) should be used in priority.
Keeping in mind the goal of the reindustrialisation of Europe on the basis of a circular economy approach, the proposed Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge Inclusive, Innovative and Reflective Societies should tackle an analysis of novel consumer patterns and consumer behaviours which are more appropriate to allow reuse and recycling of materials.
As large industries may lack the flexibility to go for breakthrough solutions (for various reasons), the support to spin-offs, start-ups and generally to SMEs (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises) should never be neglected, in particular for developing and deploying more innovative and ambitious solutions. The support to medium sized companies or “pocket multi-nationals” is also an issue.
The support to SMEs varies in its nature depending on whether they are B2B (Business-to-Business) or B2C (Business-To-Consumer) SMEs; in the former case the support is usually more effective if linked to large industry/ies in their value chain.
The materials value chain is long and the time from materials development, the development of a product until it is on the market, is estimated to be longer for materials than for other areas. Therefore, “patient money” is needed and it was highlighted that the new industrial entities should be protected from random acquisitions from outside the EU. On the other hand, the business permanence of materials is relatively longer and therefore business opportunities can last longer.
Cooperation with the financial actors should be reinforced. Financing mechanisms involving academia and research entities, local authorities and financial actors should be explored with the double aim of supporting innovation and selectively keeping within a given territory those solutions that are strategic for it, in line with the “smart specialisation” approach.
According to the spirit of Horizon 2020, more support to pilot and demonstration projects was called for. WTO (World Trade Organisation) rules were mentioned as well as the Frascati and Oslo manuals. Nevertheless, it was recognised that there is no univocally clear definition of a pilot line: it can be a simple scale-up or a test of materials in a certain application, a demonstrator for a process, a prototype for a product or a check of the qualities of a certain material. Consequently, there must be clarity and consistency in the text wording.
The concept of “open access” was discussed briefly and might make the subject of the agenda of a fourth Materials Summit, as different understandings emerged and there was no time to treat this topic extensively. It was however agreed that in traditional business models, “open access” to results may mean a no-go attitude to pilot lines from the large companies.
A scheme for top-up funding for successful research projects, e.g. as tested in the UK, could be beneficial. A small reserve of money for top-up funding might be a solution, but it is recognised that, most probably, the rules applied by the European Commission will not change and an evaluation system by independent experts must be kept. Top-up mechanisms could also be discussed with Member States or with Regions and once again the Structural Funds may play a role.
Possible “Champions”
Which are the best possible topics of research and innovation in materials science and engineering, where intervention and support at EU level are most effective and make most sense? Which are the most urgent and most effective and unavoidable topics, the errors to be avoided? These questions were debated extensively.
As a topic with a structural effect, a “control tower” or “common house” for materials research, technological development and innovation activities in Europe was suggested - as had already been mentioned at the second Summit. This would allow having an overview at EU level, including what is financed in the Member States, and would be useful to secure coherence, achieve synergies, and avoid gaps and duplications. The value of A4M (Alliance for Materials) and MatVal (a value chain approach to the materials research and innovation) was recalled in this context.
The Summit also insisted on the need for a KIC (Knowledge and Innovation Community) in materials, to break the “fixed borders” approach. As a potentially highly integrated, creative and excellence-driven partnership, a KIC brings together the fields of education, technology, research, business and entrepreneurship.
The importance of supporting the creation of the right skills was highlighted, in order to have both highly prepared and productive scientists and exploitation-minded researchers - as individuals or as persons connected in an innovation-supportive system.
A further mind-setting structuring measure suggested is on LCA (Life-Cycle Analysis) in order to contribute to the design of products with a circular economy approach, including the use of sustainable advanced materials, eco-design and use of waste as a resource, as well as a survey of the best practices and routes to diffuse them.
Modelling (materials by design), characterisation and standardisation should not receive less attention and - in an appropriate way - are good candidates for international cooperation. The value of the recently published compilation of projects on modelling: (http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/modelling-materials_en.html) was stressed. Recommendations to the European Commission on the implementation of the SET Plan Materials Roadmap were given in May 2013 by the SET plan Steering Group. A recommended research priority is to address cross-cutting issues of broad application, such as for instance cooling of thermal plants. Materials for sustainable and affordable energy production and storage will be essential, in particular for a decentralised energy production. The increased efficiency and the extension of life of materials being of paramount importance, a better understanding of the degradation of materials has been called for. To get continuity and high impact, the proposal of a new dedicated PPP e.g. as depicted in the EMIRI (Energy Materials Industrial Research Initiative) proposal, was reiterated. A CO-FUND measure is considered to be a very good idea to implement as soon as possible. A constant an uninterrupted support to materials for “greener energy” has been recommended during next years.
The origin of raw materials and the security and cost of supply should be constantly kept into consideration. The basis of the raw materials should be enlarged and the (too often unused) recycled or recyclable materials should be better exploited via innovative
materials reprocessing. Such a component could be integrated in individual projects. For e.g. the rare earths, this could be carried out within the implementation of the EIP CRM (European Innovation Partnership – Critical Raw Materials); the support to unconventional themes, e.g. deep-sea mining, is a peculiar challenge. The use of CO2 as an alternative carbon source via direct or indirect routes could find its place within the PPP SPIRE (Sustainable Process Industry through Resource and Energy Efficiency). These topics also appear to be good candidates for international cooperation.
Solar cooling was also mentioned as a priority theme.
For the important field of materials for energy efficient buildings and green vehicles, the contribution to priority setting done within the respective PPPs was acknowledged. The research should support industry and employment, thus targeting also essential properties for the end use such as durability, cost reduction, applicability and standardisation.
Awaiting the roadmap on biomaterials for healthcare, funding should address diseases where materials are a bottleneck, are of large interest (in terms both of patients and business) and concern the aging European population. New smart materials for minimally invasive surgery should be considered also as a priority as they will reduce both patients' inconvenience and societal healthcare costs, as well as the development of materials which are more compatible with the human cells, the latter being an ideal candidate for the new FET scheme.
The importance of developing new materials for the creative industries was confirmed and - as mentioned above - fast instruments are required and the use of prizes was recommended.
As it currently does not seem that a Specific Challenge effectively supports the development of new materials and solutions for the conservation, protection and valorisation of the rich European cultural heritage, this should be given priority, also in view of the importance of the tourist industry in Europe; such topics would be of particular relevance for SMEs.
The development of materials for ICT (information and communications technology) applications would ideally fall within FET for low TRLs and might make the subject of a joint effort cross-KET (cross-Key Enabling Technology) for higher TRLs. Materials for flexible, transparent and/or printed electronics were mentioned as priority candidates. LEDs (light-emitting diodes) also present a particular value in terms of energy saving. The development of transparent glues or conductive polymers should be given also high priority.
Novel functional materials should be developed for applications in agriculture in particular to fight against climate change and drier weather e.g. moisture capturing materials or gels that retain water during irrigation for late release.
It is of paramount importance that support should never be lacking for multi-application, multi-sectoral, cross-cutting materials and materials technologies. As priority examples: degradation mechanisms, self-healing, fibre-based materials (e.g. textile-like structures for applications in mechanics, constructions, thermo-plastic
composites, composites with fibres “between glass and carbon fibres” or materials for “extreme” applications).
Finally, it was noted that the EU lacks a list of infrastructures where materials properties can be tested. In a brain-storming, it was mentioned that the European Commission could propose to make a register and have institutes apply to appear on the list, but there remains the difficulty of determining the relevant KPIs (Key Performance Indicators). Creating standards for testing protocols will be an important part of this. The European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) is performing a gap analysis on infrastructures for materials. Clustering of projects for development and management of common testing pilots, as experienced in some FP7 activities, was also recommended.
Annexes
Agenda of the Materials Summit
List of participants adopting this report
Participants from the European Commission
Agenda of the Materials Summit 23 May 2013, rue du Champ de Mars 21, Brussels, room SDR2
10:30 Welcome (H. von Bose, Director, DG RTD - Industrial Technologies)
10:40 Setting the scene
Presentation of Materials portfolio (H. Wessel, DG RTD, Materials)
10:55 From research to innovation – results of a recent call for proposals (R. Tomellini, DG RTD, Materials)
11:10 Materials Research and Innovation in Horizon 2020 (M. Sadowski, DG RTD, Materials)
11:20 Presentation of FET – the Future and Emerging Technologies programme (W. Van de Velde, DG CNECT, FET)
11:50 Presentation of NANOfutures Roadmap (J. Suominen, DG RTD, Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies)
12:15 Introduction to the discussion (R. Tomellini, DG RTD, Materials)
12:30 Lunch
13:20 Discussion (moderator: R. Tomellini, DG RTD, Materials)
15:20 Conclusions and wrap-up
Meeting ends
List of participants adopting this report Edwin BAKKER Chemelot
Michał BASTISTA KMM-VIN
Harald BOLT Forschungszentrum Jülich
Roland BRANDENBURG FFG
Alek DEDIU ESB
Marco FALZETTI CSM/A4M
Bertrand FILLON CEA/LITEN
Rodrigo MARTINS E-MRS
Jean-Yves MARZIN CNRS
Pádraig NAUGHTON CEFIC
Silvia PASCALE SORIN GROUP
Daniele PULLINI CRF
Gian Marco REVEL UNIVPM
Frank SCHAAP Chemelot
Sisko SIPILÄ TEKES
Fabrice STASSIN EMIRI
Giuseppe VISIMBERGA M2i
Lutz WALTER Euratex
Berit WESSLER OSRAM
Roger WISE TWI
Ehrenfried ZSCHECH Fraunhofer
Members of the Programme Committee (observers) Edmond AMOUYAL PC
Katrin DANERLÖV PC
Alvarez GUILLERMO PC
Tor E. JOHNSEN PC
Jarosław PIEKARSKI PC
Petr PRACNA PC
Gerd SCHUMACHER PC
Peter THOSTRUP PC
Hasan Burak TIFTIK PC
Luisa TONDELLI PC
Participants from the European Commission
Herbert von BOSE EC
Renzo TOMELLINI EC
Marcin SADOWSKI EC
Helge WESSEL EC
Anne DE BAAS EC
Walter VAN DE VELDE EC
Jyrki SUOMINEN EC
Aud ALMING EC
How to obtain EU publications
Free publications:• one copy:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);• more than one copy or posters/maps:
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions:• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
European Commission
European Research and Innovation in Materials Science and Engineering: Towards a prioritisation of research topics – Report from the Materials Summit in Brussels, 23 May 2013
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
2013 — 16 pp — 21 x 29,7 cm
ISBN 978-92-79-31152-9doi 10.2777/2915
The Materials Summits have brought together representatives of main industrial and research stakeholders in materials science and engineering to discuss materials research and innovation. The first Summit in 2010 had a brain-storming character while the second one in 2012 defined ideas and proposals for the optimal features for supporting materials research and innovation at Community level.
The third Materials Summit in May 2013 also had representatives from Member States as observers, and discussed methodologically and more in detail possible “champions”, i.e. examples of the topics that represent the best “value for money” in terms of expected impact of research and innovation carried out at the level of the European Research Area in materials science and engineering.
The considerations expressed by the participants in the Materials Summit are a valuable input to the dialogue between stakeholders, and to the maturation of research strategies.
Studies and reports
KI-03-13-327-EN-N
doi:10.2777/2915