The problem

I have seen a large number of proposals and a large number of reviews. I am afraid that the reviews are not at the level they should be at. How could they be?

1. The best experts are proposing their novel futuristic ideas. Some of the ideas are clever, some of them are feasible, some of them are feasible for the consortium, some of them well written, some of them have proper gender compositions. Some of these features are acknowledged by the reviewers, some of them are not. 
2. I believe (from the proposals I have seen) that weaker reviewers are uncertain and they tend to prefer the best Universities. I agree. This is what they should do. At the same time, this is known and has consquences on the consortium formation procedure.
3. There is no feedback, no consequence to the officials in Brussels

The outcome is that many of the FET projects are not successful. 

The suggested solution

We and the people in Brussels should acknowledge this. Assume that we and Brussels people are capable for this. Then, it is clear that some proposals will fail, some of them will be on the right track, but will be slower, some of them become irrelevant soon due to some unexpected breakthrough, e.g., the same idea has been proven impossible or has gond to the market, either way.

So:

1. Use the same amount
2. Evaluate after year 1.5
3. Stop half of the project at the end of year 2
4. Save the money
5. Evaluate the remaining ones after year 3
6. Lengthen those that are worth to continue to 6 years
7. Increase the starting budget with the saved amount.

Last, but not least:

1. Credit the reviewers according to their successes or failures. Invite reviewers according to their credits. 
2. Let the top names known to the public

In other words, gamify it.

Similar practices

The Brain Institute at Riken invites the best experts to evaluate ongoing projects and proposals. Half of the projects have to stop and other proposals can start instead. This happens in every four years. This acts upon the projects and exploits independent reviewers.

The NSF officials may decide about more substantial amounts if the projects they supported gained higher visibility. This acts upon the visibility of the project.

Both of them are kind of feedback procedures.

Closing

I have mentioned this before and got the response that the suggested solution looks reasonable, but is not feasible due to legal problems. First of all, I doubt this, but I am not an expert. Secondly, I suggest that the EU should call the best and independent experts in order to evaluate the proposals that have been finished. Then it will become clear whether it is worth to keep the present practice or not.

• I am courious about the result as a resarcher.
• As a taxpayer, I like FET.