February 2022

EASN's survey on the sufficiency of funding for disruptive, low TRL research

• Recently, the EASN Board of Directors (BoD) and EASN’s Stakeholders Advisory Board (SAB) released a joint communication entitled "The Dangerous Decline of Upstream Aeronautics Research in Horizon Europe" (click here to view the letter). The document warns about the lack of sufficient funding for disruptive, low TRL research observed in both the Clean Aviation JU SRIA and the Work Programme Cluster 5 of Horizon Europe. It is considered that this will endanger the ambitious targets set by the aviation sector for aligning with the environmental goals of the European Green Deal by 2050. The letter was sent to Commissioner Mariya Gabriel, as well as several persons in the European Commission's DG Research & Innovation. It will also reach several Members of the European Parliament (MEPs).

  In this frame, EASN has invited several distinguished European Academia representatives to share with the readers of the EASN Newsletter their views, by answering the two following questions:
  
  Question 1 (Q1): ): The letter signatories suggest that two measures should be taken now to avoid the observed danger: (i) a dedicated area reserved for upstream and break-through research in CAJU, similar to CS2 and (ii) sufficient priorities for aviation research at low TRL on disruptive technologies in the Cluster 5 Work Programme with the needed resources. What is your opinion to the above measures? Are these measures suitable and sufficient to face this threat?
  
  Question 2 (Q2): European Academia is playing the important role of incubator of novel and disruptive technologies. The very limited funds until now available to low TRL upstream research, will endanger the entire ecosystem of academic research in the European Union. According to your view, in which way the universities will be affected by the current conditions of the European aviation research programs?

  To the above-mentioned set of questions answers have been received by the following:

  • Dr. Hitendra Hirani | Aerospace EU Programme Manager at University of Nottingham and Chief Strategy Officer at University of Nottingham, Italy. Member of the Academia Members Forum (AMF) of the Clean Aviation JU.
  • Prof. Panos Laskaridis | Professor of Hybrid Electric Propulsion, Head of the Propulsion Electrification Group at Cranfield University, Centre for Propulsion Engineering. Member of the Academia Members Forum (AMF) of the Clean Aviation JU.
  • Prof. Dimitrios Mourtzis | Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics (MEAD), Director of the Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems and Automation (LMS) and Vice-President Research and Development of the University of Patras. Academia representative to the Governing Board of the Clean Aviation JU.
  • Prof. Spiros Pantelakis | Honorary Chairman of the EASN and Professor Emeritus at the University of Patras.
  • Prof. Shia-Hui Peng | Research Director at the Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI), Professor at Chalmers University of Technology and EASN’s National Contact Point of Sweden.
  • Prof. Octavian Thor Pleter | Professor at the University Politehnica of Bucharest and EASN’s National Contact Point of Romania.
  • Prof. Jordi Pons i Prats | Assistant Professor at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya - Barcelona Tech and EASN’s National Contact Point of Spain
  • Prof. Rolf Radespiel | Professor and Head of the Institute of Fluid Mechanics at the Technische Universität Braunschweig. Member of the Academia Members Forum (AMF) of the Clean Aviation JU.
  • Prof. Ivica Smojver | Professor at the University of Zagreb, FMENA (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture) - Department of Aeronautical Engineering and EASN’s National Contact Point of Croatia.
  • Prof. Konstantinos Tserpes | Associate Professor at the University of Patras, Industrial Advisory Officer of the EASN’s BoD and EASN’s National Contact Point of Greece.

  The answers provided, can be found here in an alphabetical order:

• Dr. Hitendra Hirani is Aerospace EU Programme Manager at University of Nottingham and Chief Strategy Officer at University of Nottingham, Italy. He is also a member of the Academia Members Forum (AMF) of the Clean Aviation JU.

  Q1: I agree with the need for space and funding to be allocated for Low TRL work in both the CAJU and Cluster 5 programmes. But this is not sufficient. There needs to be a framework that allows for the low TRL work to transfer into industry that goes beyond a separate funding for Universities and Research Centres. There must be a programme level ability to consume new ideas that are higher risk and provide options for a technology pipeline that will help aeronautics to adopt game-changing new insights to drastically reduce emissions from Air Travel.

  Q2: I think we need to move beyond single projects and erecting of barriers between universities, research centres and industry. There has to be a structured cohesive approach towards reduction of aircraft emissions. This has to be built on real expertise and a pipeline of talent, technology and facilities that underpin these. In addition to the need for lower TRL research, there is a need for serious efforts towards properly funded post graduate training that will supply the pipeline of talent that will enable the improvements made through a programme like Horizon Europe and Clean Aviation to become endemic and part of the fabric of excellent European Science and Innovation. Without this, the technological improvement we will achieve through current programmes will be limited to short and maybe medium-term changes, whilst the real long-term benefits will be limited as we are looking at too short a time horizon for the current instruments to have an effect on reality.

• Prof. Panos Laskaridis is Professor of Hybrid Electric Propulsion, Head of the Propulsion Electrification Group at Cranfield University, Centre for Propulsion Engineering. He is also member of the Academia Members Forum (AMF) of the Clean Aviation JU.

  Q1: I am fully supportive of the two measures proposed. It is imperative that both measures as well as and follow up initiatives encouraging low TRL are implemented in CAJU and Horizon Europe. Furthermore, what may also be a useful exercise is the creation of “research sandpits” that will include multidisciplinary teams of leading academics and researchers with the aim to identify novel research initiative for a selected number of challenges facing aviation. These research sand pits can then inform research direction, priorities and funding for subsequent research programmes funded by CAJU and Horizon Europe. An academic led working Group under the auspices of EASN and in close collaboration with other Committees and WG in CAJU and Horizon Europe can coordinate the effort and feed the findings and results to the appropriate bodies and stakeholders.

  Q2:Consequences will affect all aspects of academia; some examples are listed below:

  • Universities will become less independent and will rely more on industrial funding. This will have a detrimental effect on the independent and thought leadership in technical as well as socio-economic aspects that academia has to offer.
  • It will severely impact the research and innovation potential as well as research capabilities and infrastructure of universities along with the quality and relevance of their degrees.
  • Being able to link research and taught programmes is vital in ensuring that Universities are relevant to societal and industrial needs and that they are capable of creating the leaders, technologists and researchers of the future within a highly competitive and international industry - this link will be lost.
  • Universities are playing a major role in disseminating research outcomes and findings in to the wider society and giving back to the taxpayer and overall society. Universities also play a very important role in inspiring the younger generations and empowering them to bring change through innovative and inclusive thinking and ideas. Losing these connections will have a major impact not only in the future success of aviation but society as a whole.
  • Universities will not be able to build and support internationally collaborative and inclusive programmes that are fundamental for developing multidisciplinary teams that are working and collaborating together.
  • Universities are playing a major role in fostering, promoting and bringing change. Their role includes transferring knowledge among different sectors and topics, acting as incubators for innovative and disruptive ideas, technologies and start-up companies, promoting and safeguarding the interests of the general public, ensuring that new ways of working together are also developed in parallel to the technological changes, creating and further developing technical and interpersonal qualities and skills to address the future needs of the society and the industry. Lack of funding for low TRL activities will limit the ability of Academia to full fill the above roles.

• Prof. Dimitrios Mourtzis is Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics (MEAD), Director of the Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems and Automation (LMS) and Vice-President Research and Development of the University of Patras. He is also academia representative to the Governing Board of the Clean Aviation JU.

  Q1: I am fully in line with the letter and the concerns raised. With regards to the proposed measures on how to avoid the observed danger, I could state that:

  1. The target has been clearly set by the European Commission and requires disruptive emission changes for the transportation sector by year 2050. In Aviation, development cycles typically last more than 20 years. The CA JU targets are an essential milestone towards a climate neutral Aviation. In order to meet these targets, it is mandatory to explore and mature technologies not currently available but essential the CA JU demonstrator part realization. This requirement has been identified and supported by all Stakeholders of the Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda of the Clean Aviation JU that resulted to the pilar “Explore and Mature” of the SRIA, a pillar that has been skipped by the Commission. It is obvious that with restricted low TRL and out of the Box, funded research, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to create a critical outcome of invention in aeronautics. An approach could involve the inclusion of a dedicated area reserved for upstream research within CA JU. However, because the public funds finally assigned to CA JU are, in my view, not to the required level for achieving the demanding objectives of the CA JU, is questionable if this is the best approach. The way forward is to consider these low TRL topics as objectives in the calls of the CA JU via the tool of the Thematic Topics, successfully implemented in the frame of CS2.
  2. To my view, Cluster 5 should not be considered as section of the “Explore and Mature” pilar of the CA JU mentioned in section (a) above. This lies on the fact that major and important objectives of CA JU are not included, neither considered for inclusion in Cluster 5. The limited opportunities and funding for low TRL aviation research may threaten the successful implementation of CA JU as several disruptive technologies considered in CA JU need to be first further explored and matured before being integrated and implemented in a demonstrator.

  Q2: Success of European Green Deal for Aviation depends significantly on the Academic Research Ecosystem. With limited low TRL, and out of the box funded research, it will become rather difficult if not impossible to generate a critical outcome of new added value knowledge in the aeronautics. The wide European Academic Research Ecosystem, which in my view represents an excellent investment of the European taxpayer and has been proved to be an asset in the context of developing disruptive innovation, will be severely damaged or even collapsed. However, it is rather obvious that without technological convergence will not be possible to be implemented one of the main European objectives, the social and economic cohesion. Europe needs to maintain and further develop the research ecosystem flourished the last two decades in Academia and Research Institutes in aeronautics, as an essential investment of the European taxpayers. The issue is a purely political one and should be faced and treated at this level.

• Prof. Spiros Pantelakis is Honorary Chairman of the EASN and Professor Emeritus at the University of Patras.

  Q1: With regards to the first proposed measure: To meet the targets of CA JU, which represent an essential milestone towards a climate neutral aviation, it is mandatory to explore and mature certain technologies which are currently not available but are needed for realizing the demonstrators part of the CA JU. This necessity was recognized by all Stakeholders who contributed to creating the Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda of the Clean Aviation JU; it has resulted to the pilar “Explore and Mature” of the SRIA. To give an example: who believes that we are currently ready to integrate and demonstrate the Liquid Hydrogen technologies, which however represent a very promising approach towards the climate neutral aviation and are, no doubt worth of very seriously considering? For a reason that I still cannot understand this pilar was skipped by the Commission. This decision of the Commission created a huge problem which needs to be fixed. I am not sure if the way to face the issue would be a dedicated area reserved for upstream research within CA JU, given also that the public funds finally assigned to CA JU are, in my view, by far less as needed for achieving the very challenging objectives of the CA JU. What is indispensable is to consider these low TRL topics as objectives in the calls of the CA JU. The tool of the Thematic Topics, which by the way was established with the very proactive contribution of EASN, was successfully implemented in the frame of CS2 and could be a very appropriate tool also for facing the problem of the lacking technologies mentioned above in the frame of CA JU

  With regards to the second proposed measure: Cluster 5 should not be understood as part of the missing explore and mature pilar of the CA JU mentioned above, as essential, and wide topics of aviation research are not included to the objectives of CA JU. It is a pity that the aviation related calls in Cluster 5 are limited to a few, and I regret that the funds are by far insufficient. In my view Cluster 5 should include an increased budget share for aviation, more calls related to disruptive technologies related to aviation and a wide range of technological topics exceeding the topics addressed by CA JU.

  Q2: I am afraid that we are moving from the current ecosystem which is boosting the exploitation of the entire innovation potential of academia Europewide and includes large and small universities from big and “smaller” countries, to an ecosystem which will exploit only partially the academia innovation potential of Europe as it will be limited to the potential of only a few innovation focal points located mainly in the main European “aviation countries”. If it happens, it would represent a very big step back. Please let me underline that it took several decades for creating the current academia ecosystem as well as an essential investment of the European taxpayer. The current academia research ecosystem is efficient, democratic and contributes to Europe’s cohesion. It would be a big mistake to destroy it. The issue is a purely political one and should be faced at this level.

• Prof. Shia-Hui Peng is Research Director at the Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI), Professor at Chalmers University of Technology and EASN’s National Contact Point of Sweden.

  Q1: The two proposed measures fit very well in line with the expectation of academia and the European research community. It seems that a dramatic shrink of research resources of supporting upstream RTD in EU FP had already started in the presence of CS and becoming increasingly exaggerated since CS2. It would be interesting to have a highlight of the statistics on the funding since CS and FP7 dedicated to fundamental research (say, for all projects in aviation with a TRL = 3-4 and lower). This may provide with a strong argument to support the proposed measures.

  Since CAJU is industry driving, it is probably more reasonable to state such as (?):

  1. a dedicated area reserved for upstream research with industrial potentials, break-through research on emerging and/or disruptive technologies in CAJU.
  2. b. sufficient priorities for aviation research of fundamental types at low TRL on new/improved theories, methodologies and technologies to maintain European aviation industry leadership and competitiveness in the Cluster 5 Work Programme with the needed resources.

  Q2: Research driven by universities can readily be established in a multi- and interdisciplinary framework. With reduced funds, upstream multi- and interdisciplinary research will be significantly affected, which, in a long-term point of view, may affect further the generation and integration of new knowledge and related dissemination in higher education and in training of future aviation researchers. The effect may to a certain extent be even reflected in the sustainability of future aviation education and research at universities.

• Prof. Octavian Thor Pleter is Professor at the University Politehnica of Bucharest and EASN’s National Contact Point of Romania.

  Q1:

  1. I agree. Unlike applied research, which has to demonstrate effectiveness and proper return on investment, upstream and break through research carries more inherent risk, involve speculative mindset. Proper funding would generate wonderful results overall, but not down to every individual project. Risk means volatility, and volatility is about randomness in the results. This makes exactly a case for dedicated funding.
  2. The choice of very specialised fields as priorities is not exactly what I would expect for low TRL. Low TRL comes with multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary character and a very strict taxonomy of what can be funded and what cannot does not match this larger span. Your point is to provide "sufficient" priorities and that is ok, but also leaving more liberty to the choice of research subjects would do.

  Q2: As I mentioned, my university is a special mini-ecosystem, with its cross-inefficiencies, which obstruct my view on the larger ecosystem. But I agree that lowering the level of funding will be detrimental to the much-needed competitiveness of Europe. United States are always taken as an example on how universities can attract private funds for research. Probably in Europe universities do not do enough to attract private funds, but there are explanations of this. The EU in fact plays the role of a corporation and the EU research money are similar to US private funding, because the EU distributes the funds on objective basis and competition-based, very much like a corporation.

  Even in the US, low TRL research is not always private funded, the federal institutions sometimes come in. The low TRL research funded by a private company is difficult due to the volatility factor, but also because in low TRL, researchers are not sure of the results. Private companies have expectations when investing, and low TRL naturally generate unpredictable results. My point is that there is an advantage to have the EU funding scheme instead of private funding, especially in low TRL.

• Prof. Jordi Pons i Prats is Assistant Professor at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya - Barcelona Tech and EASN’s National Contact Point of Spain.

  Q1: First of all let me thank you for this initiative. The lack of upstream research funding is not a problem nowadays, in the last H2020 it was also a critical point, which some people already arised. I agree with the two proposed actions, since including basic research into CAJU will help to focus on the specific problems of the industry, while adding low TRL topics into HE WP will help researchers to proposed novel ideas, with a bit more freedom of action than in CAJU (where the industry takes the lead).

  Q2: The reduction of available funding is making each call more and more competitive, which at the end is a good point, but on the other hand can take some universities out of the game, leading to the loss of critical mass in the research establishments. Although this could be understood as a nice way to keep the best alive and discard the others, the effect is that we are reducing the reserve team.

• Prof. Rolf Radespiel is Professor and Head of the Institute of Fluid Mechanics at the Technische Universität Braunschweig. He is also member of the Academia Members Forum (AMF) of the Clean Aviation JU.

  Q1: Yes, I think the measures are as suited as can be.

  Q2:

  1. Loosing the international dimension of their work on aeronautics which usually helps bringing the academic research on a higher level.
  2. Loosing competitiveness compared to US academia and Chinese academia.
  3. Loosing the visibility towards Industry. That is, they will miss dissemination and exploitation opportunities of their work.

• Prof. Ivica Smojver is Professor at the University of Zagreb, FMENA (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture) - Department of Aeronautical Engineering and EASN’s National Contact Point of Croatia.

  Q1: These measures are necessary, and it should be done - the only question is whether this is possible at this moment, as CAJU is legally very strictly formulated. At least, the concerns should be loudly expressed through this document.

  Q2: The very limited funding for basic (lower TRL) research has, in a long term, highly negative effect on the future of European aviation sector. The problem is that many of the technologies, incubated through this type of research today, will be missing in the application within the next 10 - 20 years (as simply they will not exist). In addition, a lot of academic institution that are not closely connected to the big Tier1 players or OEMs will be completely out of the picture. There will be no possibility for them to participate in the calls as structured now. This will be especially noticeable in the (smaller) countries that do not have highly developed aeronautical industry but can provide a lot of basic research applicable to aviation as well.

• Prof. Konstantinos Tserpes is Associate Professor at the University of Patras, Industrial Advisory Officer of the EASN’s BoD and EASN’s National Contact Point of Greece.

  Q1: Both measures are suitable. Maybe not fully sufficient but very important. To fully solve the problem, it is necessary to change the adopted approach of the aeronautics research in Europe.

  Q2:

  • Implementation of current ideas and research infrastructure in universities will be degraded.
  • Generation of new ideas and disruptive approaches will be counterbalanced.
  • The Universities will deviate from the industrial environment.
  • Education of young engineers will be negatively affected.