Since the federal reform in Germany, the term research building has been understood to mean the joint funding of new, converted or extended buildings, including large-scale equipment, at universities , which are jointly funded by the federal government and the respective federal state, and the joint funding of university buildings in accordance with the University Building Funding Act replaces. The basis for this is the newly created Article 91b Paragraph 1 No. 3 of the Basic Law. Research buildings are to be regarded as buildings that essentially serve research, have a unique selling point against the background of the absolutely necessary coherent research program and which exceed an investment volume of more than 5 million euros. In a two-stage review process, the federal states submit corresponding applications to the Scientific Council responsible for implementation; an approval committee decides on the rejection or approval and ranking of applications according to priorities.
Research buildings serve as coherent new, reconstructed or expanded buildings that can be separated from other institutions in terms of content to a significant part of research. They follow a research program which - as a basis for a successful application - must convince the participating researchers in the assessment through content-related coherence and scientific quality.
The research program to be worked on in the future and the expected time horizon determine the essential requirements for the research building and the large devices that may be required or contained therein. The content-related program of a research building also provides essential justifications with regard to possible unique selling points that are decisive for a funding decision. If there are no such features, the federal government should not participate in the financing as part of the division of tasks between the federal government and the states. The financial support for the establishment would then be a matter solely for the respective country.
Course of the procedure
Applications for such research buildings can be submitted by the universities of a state to the Science Council via the responsible ministries as an application of the respective state. As has been the case in many areas of research funding since the Excellence Initiative, the process itself runs in a two-stage process. Both the draft application and the application itself are electronically transmitted to the Science Council using a database developed for this purpose . Appropriate approval procedures are also implemented for the respective authorities within the university (mostly building departments in the administration), the responsible ministries and the Science Council or the federal government.
First stage of the process
In the first stage, the university making the application submits a six-page application sketch . The proposal outline focuses essentially on the presentation of the research program and the argumentation for its supraregional importance. Information about the internal organization of a research building or more precise estimates of the expected funding requirements are not yet in the foreground. Application drafts can be submitted once a year by September 15th (until November 15th 2011). These are then forwarded by the office of the Science Council to appropriately appointed experts and checked there. On the basis of the expert recommendations, the Approval Committee usually makes a decision after about two months (usually in the middle or end of January) whether a draft application is requested for a full application. Rejected application drafts can either be revised on the basis of the expert advice or receive a clear vote not to start again with this program and in this configuration.
Second stage of the process
Projects requested to submit an application then have the opportunity within approx. Two months to develop a 30-page full application from the basis laid down in the six-page application sketch, which must be submitted again via the relevant ministry by January 20 (until 2012: March 15) is. With the submission of the application, the respective country usually also makes corresponding commitments about funding. The applications will now be submitted again to reviewers who will make appropriate recommendations to the approval committee. As with the application outlines, the following criteria serve as the basis for evaluating the applications:
Objectives of the project and the importance of the research building for the implementation of the project objectives
Nationwide unique selling point and possibly even international significance of the research building
Coherence of the research program and conciseness of the presentation (this also includes the scientific quality of the applicants and the innovation potential that could result from the research program)
Importance of the realization of the research building for the further development of the applying university
Proven skills of those involved with regard to the research program
Further goals (technology transfer, networking with non-university research institutions, etc.) and the likelihood of achieving these with the help of the research building
If an application can convince both the reviewers and the approval committee, which is responsible for the funding and prioritization of the applications, in terms of these criteria, the possibly reduced funds for the realization of the research building are usually made available as requested according to a funds call plan. The funding decision is formally confirmed by the Joint Scientific Commission of the federal and state governments before the funds are actually made available. However, the respective country can start implementation at its own risk after the decision of the grant committee. It is the sovereignty of the responsible ministries and the subordinate departments (e.g. state building authorities) to ensure that the implementation follows the schedule in coordination with the university.
Evaluation of the procedure
If you look at both the first and the second round of the process, it can be seen that the first round and the associated selection process represent the much higher hurdle. For example, the success rate in the first stage was around a third in the 2009 funding phase (decisions made in 2008). Application sketches that have been requested to submit the application then have the option of further development on the basis of the qualified expert opinions; the success rate in the second stage is significantly higher at around two thirds, with applications that have not been taken into account being put on hold for further revision.
