> How does it benefit the EU tax payer when projects that could be successfully done for 300k, are blown up to 3M with questionable added value?

At least in FP7, the EU wanted implementations and new markets or businesses, because they didn't want to pay for something they didn't understand.

Trade metrics are easy to understand and less objectionable than funding someone with an innovative idea on a domain where there are few experts. Th EU commission themselves has also to report about their actions to EU parliament and EU council.

> You are just advocating to game the EU bureaucracy better.

You may not know but it happens that EU commission, or national authorities ask for reimbursement of funds if they thinks they have been gamed. Tricking the "EU" is not advisable.

You are just restating that for the EU, bureaucracy is more important than genuine research. Furthermore, the "gaming" I referred to is of course the legally allowed game that the EU is actually expecting you to play, and that you advised in your previous comment.

> You are just restating that for the EU, bureaucracy is more important than genuine research.

Perhaps but that's not my impression. My impression is (as in this thread) there is no good intrinsic metrics for research, except if it shows an impact on society.

There is no good intrinsic metrics for research, we can agree on that. Impact on society is not a good measure either, because if you had funded 10 smaller research projects instead of one big one, you might have gotten a much bigger impact on society, but not so easy to measure and attribute, and maybe not as quick to do the impacting.

So yes, bureaucracy. Because instead of actually doing the job that needs to be done, the EU is more interested in covering their own asses so that it looks as if they were doing the job. But the EU is not special in any way here, except that it is a very big example of a bureaucracy, of course.