Estonian Biocentre has participated in the call for centres of excellence within the INCO 2 package of FP5. Our proposal, titled as Geneticists for the Next Millennium (Genemill), was placed 3-5 during the evaluation and we have received financing. While we now discussed among ourselves whether to participate in a somewhat similar call, we first hesitated: the named project is still ongoing and we have not yet exhausted its possibilities. Probably, we thought, a repeated competition may be seen as an attempt to become a sort of permanent salesman of the same bag, wherever and whenever there is a market. Yet we have decided to participate. Why did we change our mind?

First and foremost, the previous application was prepared more than 2 years ago. Then, not much was known about the next FP and the European Research Area initiative was in its embryonic stage. And although the very final documents about the rules for the FP6 are not approved yet by the EP and by the Council, many and probably the most essential aspects of it have became clear. Directly relevant here is a turn from the financing of limited in scale joint research projects, to networks of excellence and to integrated projects. Bearing that in mind, we asked our international advisory board, together with us (i.e. the local steering committee), to look over the goals an aims ('workpackages") in our ongoing project, as well as other developments during the last two years, in order to make recommendations. The recommendation was to participate in this competition. More specifically, it was pointed out by the board that while the instruments of the ongoing project are, so to say, overwhelmingly self-centred and in a way fragmented, the challenges ahead need more clearly, say, even more narrowly, targeted actions. In other words - to cover less different general activities, but to make a clear stress to the networking with the excellence in the field of life sciences and technologies. Primarily with the excellence in Europe, but also keeping a close eye to the best in US and, possibly, elsewhere. As the Advisory Board concluded: carry on as you have done so far - look to excellence in abroad and in directions where you have reached a real working collaboration on equal footing, your own work is very likely excellent as well. You will see that in the field of basic science and, sometimes even more clearly, where you attract industrial partnership and private resources in general. This, likely, will be your way into the ERA.

These recommendations of the Board led us to the understanding that there is in fact not much use in copying the instruments of the previous proposal: there is a need for new concepts. Furthermore, it was now possible to capitalize from a significantly wider and deeper long-term collaboration with different research centres and industrial partners than 2-3 years ago. Notably, thanks to joint research projects of FP5 we are involved in (or plan shortly to join), but not at all only. The ongoing INCO 2 excellence centres project opened additional possibilities, whereas rapid growth of our spin-offs has opened altogether different directions and dimensions.

The third argument (or, rather, several such arguments) for the participation can be seen as "local", but we have considered it equally seriously. "Seriously" is a right word here because all relatively large-scale projects like that, addressed to not-so-prosperous conditions, rise a legitimate question - what happens when the project is over? Say - you use your money to attract lots of nice fellows, good lecturers etc. and, when it is over after 3 years or so, they pack up and leave - probably with the best among your grad students. Let us here limit with a statement that although we understand this sort of fears, our now already almost 10-year experience makes us rather immune against them; we return to this issue in more depth below (see also B4 and, in particular, subsection C4).

Here, however, we briefly try to explain a relevant, but a more general "Estonian-centred" point, why we believe that the R&D activities of the Estonian Biocentre, and of this proposal, are in a focus of the strategic vision of Estonia for the future of R&D in this country and an additional guarantee for a sustainable development. Namely, in December, 2001, Estonian Parliament approved the presented by the Government "white book on R&D" for Estonia for the next 4 year period (electronic version in English is available at the www site of the Estonian R&D Council at the Prime Minister: www.tan.ee). It is the first such level R&D document for our country: former versions have been governmental position papers, not legally binding to any new administration. Only three "key areas" in the field of R&D are now defined for Estonia, one of them being biotechnology and, in its more detailed description, with a stress on genomics and on molecular medicine in general - for healthcare and industrial innovation. Its explanatory chapter includes also gene technologies to be used to improve the quality of the environment. This rather complex document foresees organisational and financial means to be used by the administration to achieve the named goals. We mention it here in order to demonstrate that: (i) the current project fulfils, in the most direct sense, one of the criteria for the current call: relevance for the economy and/or the society of NAS, listed under section C8 and (ii) also because strategic decisions made in Estonia give an additional "insurance" for sustainability of undertakings in the field of biomedical R&D in this country.

It is worthwhile to add that the same document is now used as a blueprint for relevant chapters in a new version of the Estonian National Development Plan (referred now as Single Planning Document), currently under preparation and to be presented to, and get approved by, the EU, as a basis to distribute the Structural Funds of the EU in future.

Finally, we trust that the overall spirit and the key positions of our proposal are in a good conformity with the discussed earlier in length and approved by the European Commission on 23.01.2002 a comprehensive plan for the development of life sciences and biotechnology in Europe.

All these diverse components, taken together, convinced us to submit the current proposal. From the Genemill proposal, we kept a central introductory principle, defined as: this proposal is not to carry out any particular scientific enquiry, neither developmental work directly, because we have adequate means for that from different sources.

Here we add: This proposal is to extend and to make more efficient a platform for a successful entering of the Estonian Biocentre into the European Research Area - in our particular field. This is the objective of the proposal, further explained as follows.

This single general objective covers different components. Instruments for it (work packages) are outlined elsewhere in the proposal (section B4). Although one may think about a long list of aspects indirectly influencing successful participation of the Estonian Biocentre in the ERA, many of them are beyond our effective control, there are several, what we can affect and out of them we selected those where an additional temporarily available resources can make a significant difference.

Under "a platform" we keep in mind a variety of components, depending primarily from us, like attractive research themes, good equipment and premises and an adequate research support, efficient electronic network and access to literature, friendly atmosphere etc.

While seeking support under current call, our strategy to make this platform more efficient, foresees many undertakings outside this support scheme. In a way, they can be viewed as matching costs above the usual research and teaching support, either national or international. They include, in Summer 2002, a profound reconstruction of premises for bioinformatics (planned 0.6 MEUR for construction works and 0.2 MEUR for additional network equipment). It also includes final planning of the third stage of the lab complex, possibly also the beginning of its construction (about 3500 sq.m) within the next 3 years. An additional 1 MUSD recently received for sending our postdocs abroad may be also viewed as "building a platform".

Thus, our sub-objectives are:

1. to build twinning relations with (a limited list of) scientific institutions of recognized European and world level excellence in research;
2. to open research themes and positions in EBC for an international competition and to internationalise our graduate school.
3. to gather recognition as being among the leaders in the field by organizing a continuous system of international/regional seminars, hands-on training courses and workshops.

There seems to be a strong political will in the European Union that quite a few associated countries will receive a call to join the EU soon. Current political decisions of the member states suggest that it should happen so that citizens of these countries may participate in EP elections in 2004. In this sense it is seems that non of the listed objectives would likely face setbacks for reasons outside our control.

What, then, may be seen as problematic? Indeed, here is a question about the objective. The ERA does not exist, so one cannot enter it. At least not yet. Therefore, it would be more proper to say that the proposal is an element, albeit a very small one, of the creating of the ERA. Nevertheless, we can speak about FP6 and our success in participation in its main instruments, as about a verifiable indicator, but here the time horizon appears to be wider than the duration of this call. On the other hand, the sub-objectives, reflecting the content of work packages, are individually verifiable and, together with many other necessary components would hopefully create a synergistic effect expected. In particular, we view the proposed twinning scheme as a beginning of organizing networking of excellence under common research programme.

However, usually this sort of collaboration is project-based and short-living. If to take a careful look to the new Finnish centres of excellence, launched this January for a 6 year period, then there, one may perhaps see arrangements, more close to the "twinning": different research units from different universities agreed to collaborate on the basis of relatively long programs, not just projects. There may be examples like that elsewhere. In this sense our twinning schemes may be considered innovative, though not original.

There is nothing innovative in our proposal to achieve opening of research positions, including top positions, to international competition - just a common practice in many EU countries, though not in all. Yet it is quite innovative in Estonian conditions - if not necessarily in words, then certainly so in practice. It should be done, but per se it is but a remote prerequisite for the ERA. The same concerns opening grad studies and postdocs positions (and here we have already some positive experience): funds available for mobility can be considered here as a vital component.

More innovative would be to test approaches for the opening of long-term national research themes internationally. We are well aware that this issue is currently debated quite extensively (e.g in a recent issue of Science by G. Radda from MRC, EL. Winnaker from DFG and H. Wigzell from Karolinska) and we are quite willing to test it, e.g., at the level of the Estonian Gene Heritage program. Possibly in some other close-to-industry projects as well - limiting it here to the margin of pre-competitive applied biomedical research, e.g. in DNA vaccines. Of course, the present proposal can only be seen as a small-scale pilot in this direction.

In sum, a benevolent reader may hopefully see certain innovative aspects in this proposal. Here, we keep in mind the instruments to be applied, not science itself. There, we trust, an innovative nature of our research and developmental work is less foggy.