The objective of the roadmap is to invest in efficient utilization and shared use of the existing European research infrastructures and to support the creation of new ones. Modern and high-quality infrastructures are fundamental for scientific research, but their building, maintenance, and use are usually so expensive that long-term commitment of several countries is required to implement them.

A national roadmap survey on the situation in Finland was initiated in January 2008, funded by the Ministry of Education. The survey report “National-level research infrastructures: Present state and roadmap” was completed in December 2008 having been carried out by the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies. “We conducted a survey to find out which national-level infrastructures already exist in Finland. We also evaluated which new ones are needed and in which international research infrastructures it would be good for Finland to participate,” says Eeva Ikonen, Senior Scientific Adviser, Academy of Finland, who worked as the project manager for the national roadmap survey. Ikonen is the Finnish delegate on the ESFRI forum and chairs one of the thematic working groups.

National-level roadmaps were created simultaneously in many countries, though there were almost as many ways to create the maps as the number of countries involved. In some countries only new roadmap proposals were taken into account, while some countries included only certain fields of research. The roadmap of Greece, for example, does not include infrastructures relating to environmental sciences at all. “I believe that the ministries and decision-making authorities in different countries will collaborate and gradually find the best ways for creating the roadmaps,” says Ikonen.

In its national roadmap, Finland has discussed 20 infrastructure projects, 13 of which are linked to ESFRI. Of the 13, seven are linked to European research infrastructures and their planning is already going on, with some having even reached the construction stage. Therefore, decisions will be needed as soon as possible concerning Finland’s commitment to the infrastructures for the fields that they relate to. If all of the infrastructures listed on the national roadmap were to be realized, it would cost EUR 230 million. This means that not everything can be implemented at once; prioritization will be needed.

Large research infrastructures are planned for as long as ten years before their realization is considered. The length of the process is not necessarily understood when roadmaps are being created. “Firstly, it takes time to create the technical design. For example, all technical solutions relating to physics must be tested in advance. Administrative and financial planning takes a surprisingly long time, for all parties must be financially committed to the infrastructure. It takes time before the political volition is agreed and the agreement can be signed. Finally, a decision is made concerning the physical location of the infrastructure. A research infrastructure may have a major employment effect for the area, and it may accumulate enterprise activities around it. Practical issues will have to be considered, such as traffic connections and availability of local housing for the researchers. All activities in the community must support the infrastructure. The physical location is often subject to competition between different countries,” says Ikonen.

Hosting a research infrastructure requires much juridical and administrative know-how; mere strong scientific expertise is not enough. The European Commission has allocated funds for training to address administrative problem areas relating to research infrastructures. The Commission has also nominated a legal framework, European Research Infrastructure Consortium, ERIC, for research infrastructures.

“Finland should strive to attain positions of responsibility in the research infrastructures of the current roadmap. If we join the infrastructure later, we will only be rank and file members,” says Eeva Ikonen from the Academy of Finland. © The Academy of Finland

Research infrastructures need funding

But where does the money come from? This question is essential, because Finland does not have an executive body, such as a ministry of science, to handle matters relating to research infrastructures, but the matters are under the partial jurisdiction of several different ministries. Ikonen hopes that a permanent research infrastructure committee, or at least a regularly convening working group, will be nominated in Finland. “The situation is quite untenable when we have no coordination. The best solution would be a permanent organ that would also have executive power over the funds available. At the moment the decision-making power is always transferred to the ministry in question, which, once again, slows down the decision process. However, the matter at hand may be quite critical needing rapid decision-making.”

During the budget negotiations for 2009, earmarked funds were reserved for only a few ESFRI projects. “Finland would like to gain a significant position in ICOS, as well as in other projects. Finland has the competence to assume a significant role, but it is going to be necessary to demonstrate the availability of financial resources for at least five years,” says Ikonen.

“Finland is such a small country that we cannot even imagine having a large physics infrastructure in Finland. But hosting a geographically dispersed partial center of the same research infrastructure or a distributed research infrastructure comprising several functional centers would be feasible at reasonable costs for a small country. Looking at Finland from the point of view of science and innovation and our ranking in relevant statistics, it would seem odd, if we didn’t make investments like this,” Ikonen continues.

Research infrastructures are implemented based on the variable geometry principle. For example, countries interested in a particular physics project will announce their interest in the building phase and, in a way, they become venture members. The countries must show that they have secured funds for five years.  Since several member countries are currently in a difficult financial situation, the EU could financially secure the progress of the research infrastructure initiatives that are important for Europe. In order to make the ESFRI research infrastructures feasible, three to five countries will have to sign up, willing to commit themselves to the projects. “Finland should keep “an ear to the ground” to find out what prerequisites are needed to be involved in these projects. If we have a strong interest in being involved in one of the infrastructures, it would be possible to get funding from the EU.”

Finland is about to miss the ESFRI train

As a matter of course, Finland is falling behind other Nordic countries. Sweden has existing structures for their research infrastructure policy and funds for the ESFRI initiatives. Norway and Denmark also have significant funds available to implement the ESFRI initiatives. “It also seems that major European countries, including France, Germany, Italy, and the UK will participate in almost all ESFRI initiatives holding important positions,” says Ikonen.

“The Research and Innovation Council of Finland recommended that substantial initial-phase funds should be allocated to the research infrastructure initiatives. EUR 50 million was spoken of, which was the amount recommended by the Research and Innovation Council. That would have given us a good start for implementing the roadmap. Unfortunately we did not get quite that much,” Ikonen notes. “Now we need to use all means to make clear to the decision-makers that if funding is unavailable and we do not participate, then the decision is taken in full knowledge and political responsibility will have to be taken for the consequences.”

From the perspective of scientists’ employment and expertise, this will have important and long-lasting significance. “The current employment forecast indicates that we will not have enough highly educated employees available to replace those who disappear from the working life. If we could have at least the position of a partial center in one of the distributed research infrastructures, it would ensure that we will have skillful employees and our researchers will have adequate working environments to prevent them from leaving the country,” says Ikonen.

“One truly weak point is the insufficient international dimension in Finnish research, although the common perception is the opposite. We are not truly involved in essential international projects. If we look at the framework programme’s results, we have been reasonably successful, but we have held little coordination responsibility. It is alarming if Finnish researchers do not move around, because it means that they are not involved in international discussion. It also means that Finnish researchers and research results are less noticed and valued,” says Ikonen.

The next update of the European roadmap is likely to be published in 2011. The update version will contain new initiatives only in the fields of energy and possibly certain subfields of biosciences. The update version is expected to contain fewer research initiatives than the 2008 map. The new roadmap will be a play-off round: if some of the current 44 initiatives are not implemented or if clear advancement cannot be shown, they will be removed from the map. “It is difficult to know when the drop-off initiatives will be reviewed next. I do not believe that Finland has the wherewithal to host large energy infrastructures. Finland should strive to attain positions of responsibility in the research infrastructures of the current roadmap. If we join the infrastructure later, we will only be rank and file members. It would be against our innovation strategy. This is the time to act!” emphasizes Ikonen.

Tiina Raivo

More Information

More information on ESFRI

Research e-Infrastructure in Finland, a survey report CSC submitted to the Ministry of Education in December last year.