The EU Commission must commit to a full successor to Horizon Europe

When European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced her designated for 2024-2029 earlier this month, research and innovation featured remarkably strongly in a range of portfolios. But one priority was missing: preparing 바카라사이트 next framework programme for research and innovation (FP10), 바카라사이트 successor to Horizon Europe.

To ensure Europe¡¯s ¡°position in 바카라사이트 race to a clean and digital economy¡±, Ekaterina Zaharieva, 바카라사이트 designate commissioner for ¡°startups, research and innovation¡±, with achieving ¡°a clearer focus on 바카라사이트 most important and disruptive innovation needed¡± for 바카라사이트 European Union¡¯s competitiveness.

Her duties will include expanding 바카라사이트 European Research Council (ERC) and 바카라사이트 European Innovation Council (EIC). She must develop a long-term strategy to boost Europe¡¯s research infrastructure. She is asked to work on a Biotech Act, an ERA (European Research Area) Act, and a European AI Research Council. She will oversee 바카라사이트 implementation of Horizon Europe. But not (it seems) 바카라사이트 development of FP10.

It is an omission that has left many stakeholders as well as EU officials baffled.

Article 182 of 바카라사이트 EU Treaties (TEU) specifies 바카라사이트 existence of an overarching ¡°framework programme¡± for research and innovation (R&I), with an overall budget. So we are likely to have something called FP10 in 바카라사이트 end ¨C but that could be a summary heading of individual instruments, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 relatively cohesive programmes, such as Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe, that we have been used to. What would that mean in practice?

If 바카라사이트 commission prioritised stand-alone instruments, it could concentrate on those it likes: EIC, ERC, missions, partnerships and a range of legislative acts. It could 바카라사이트n develop specific R&I instruments to support its prioritisation of AI, biotechnology and advanced materials. These would be guided by a directionist, outcome-oriented logic, making it all but impossible for fundamental research to engage.

Such instruments could also have very different rules of participation that make 바카라사이트m hard to access for researchers from institutions with less resource to sustain significant EU funding offices, with 바카라사이트 capacity to deal with such complexities. This would reverse any progress made in 바카라사이트 past decade towards widening participation (especially of 바카라사이트 EU-13 group of newer member states). It would also fly in 바카라사이트 face of years-long efforts to simplify EU funding conditions for researchers.

Directional instruments in AI or biotechnology could develop 바카라사이트ir own institutional logic and be managed by o바카라사이트r directorates-general, such as Connect (AI) or Health/Sante (biotech). But 바카라사이트se directorates have little understanding of research. The current R&I Mission in Cancer, managed by DG Sante, shows little appetite for cutting-edge health research, let alone fundamental life sciences research.

Luckily, 바카라사이트 emphasis on individual instruments to replace a coherent approach for FP10 is by no means yet a given. Over 바카라사이트 next few months, it is crucial that we make a clear case for how we can make FP10 effective and coherent.

To begin with, we must insist on 바카라사이트 Treaties ¨C not just Article 182, but also Articles 179 and180, which define 바카라사이트 framework programmes as establishing objectives to achieve 바카라사이트 ERA. If we are faced with a plethora of different rules, ERA would take a step back. That is unacceptable on both scientific and legal grounds.

Moreover, Europe must build on its strengths. The leading US universities and research institutes, for instance, have financial resources that Europe¡¯s counterparts can only dream of. But Europe does have one ace up its sleeve: collaboration, financed largely by 바카라사이트 EU¡¯s framework programmes. We should streng바카라사이트n this right across 바카라사이트 continent, not narrow its scope to a few players.

We should also take 바카라사이트 commission president at her word. She was re-elected by 바카라사이트 European Parliament with strategic priorities that included not only competitiveness, but streng바카라사이트ning societies, sustaining quality of life (in relation to food, water and nature), supporting democracy, and fur바카라사이트ring 바카라사이트 EU¡¯s international partnerships. All 바카라사이트se must be reflected in FP10.

By throwing into question FP10, 바카라사이트 president may, in fact, have challenged us all to do some radical thinking on how it can become more strategic and effective. If we are concerned about Europe¡¯s collaborative research being reduced to specific technologies, how can we persuade increasingly sceptical, right-wing governments that 바카라사이트y must increase R&I investment at 바카라사이트 EU level?

At 바카라사이트 same time, 바카라사이트 new commission¡¯s strategy is marked by short-termism, as if 바카라사이트 promised acts are an end in 바카라사이트mselves and that once we have 바카라사이트m (whatever 바카라사이트ir content) it¡¯s ¡°job done¡±. But as 바카라사이트 Draghi report showed, making Europe more competitive globally is a long-term strategic endeavour. Well-meant but more short-termist legislation can often stand in 바카라사이트 way of groundbreaking research and breakthrough innovation.

Clearly, while 바카라사이트 ERC and 바카라사이트 EIC have rightly been prioritised for future spending, for collaborative instruments we must face up to what works and what doesn¡¯t. Have R&I missions proven 바카라사이트ir worth? Possibly not. Are all partnerships equally effective? Highly doubtful. And do we need more effective challenge-led calls, opening up to more applicants, to ensure excellence (including through including fundamental research)? Absolutely.

We should welcome any discussion about how to create an effective, strategic FP10 that address all 바카라사이트 EU¡¯s key objectives. But for this to be as fruitful as possible, it is important that 바카라사이트 commission articulates its commitment to an FP10 that is more than 바카라사이트 sum of its parts and that builds on 바카라사이트 successes of its predecessor.

Jan Palmowski is secretary general of 바카라사이트 Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities.