UK slates proposed EIT centre

The EIT scheme aims to improve global competitiveness and rival the US' MIT

UK opposition to European Commission plans for a research centre to rival the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is gaining momentum.

A House of Lords Europe committee heard last week that the proposal is unclear and potentially ineffective.

Under the scheme, the European Institute of Technology (EIT) will be a loose network of knowledge and innovation communities (KICs) including industry and existing academic centres. It is part of the i2010 initiative to bolster the region’s global competitiveness.

But UK representatives are highly sceptical. Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe, chief executive of higher education action group Universities UK, says there is a real need to boost European research and development (R&D) but it needs business investment, not just academic research.

‘It is very unclear as to how the proposed model for EIT will add value and whether it will provide the right incentives to draw in businesses and universities,’ she told the Lords committee.

‘Although politically-driven schemes such as the EIT may have a role to play, there are still substantial challenges in making sure that the tax and regulatory systems in Europe are structured to allow the right environment for R &D to thrive. This is where the real problem lies,’ she said.

Central concerns include how the scheme will be funded, how EIT will award degrees, and what incentives there will be for business and industrial sectors.

Europe committee member Lord Moser said: ‘We are on the third model, which is a virtual operation, and I see very little merit in that at all.’

At a House of Commons committee meeting last month education minister Bill Rammell told MPs the UK government wants more clarification before supporting the plan.

But committee member Derek Wyatt says the government should go further.

‘We do not want an EIT, it is complete lunacy,’ said Wyatt. ‘The plan is 20 years out of date, a waste of taxpayers’ money and our government should say so more strongly than it is.’