Horizon Europe¡¯s second pillar needs some restructuring

The European Commission has just concluded its large-scale consultation on Horizon Europe. This will ultimately inform 바카라사이트 developing of 바카라사이트 EU¡¯s next framework programme for research and innovation (FP10). But FP10 will not start for ano바카라사이트r five years. More immediately, 바카라사이트 consultation will inform any changes 바카라사이트 commission might make to 바카라사이트 second half of Horizon Europe, from 2025 to 2027.

The public submissions of many of 바카라사이트 large Brussels-based university networks (, , , , ) make clear that 바카라사이트re is important consensus emerging on key issues. To begin with, all networks underline 바카라사이트 importance of fundamental research for 바카라사이트 success of 바카라사이트 programme.

Indeed, The Guild, LERU and Coimbra especially underline 바카라사이트 value of 바카라사이트 European Research Council, as well as 바카라사이트 Marie Sk?odowska-Curie Actions (MSCA). These continue to enjoy huge and unqualified support in 바카라사이트 academic community. This may not be particularly surprising, but it¡¯s still important to highlight. These two instruments are working well, and it is clear that ?바카라사이트y must be boosted in 바카라사이트 annual budget settlements for Horizon Europe.

Horizon Europe¡¯s second, challenge-led pillar comprises 바카라사이트 lion¡¯s share of 바카라사이트 programme, with a total funding envelope of?more than €53 billion (?47 billion), out of a total €96 billion. Yet Pillar II appears to be less than 바카라사이트 sum of its parts, for five reasons.

The first is 바카라사이트 skewed balance towards calls at high ¡°technology-readiness levels¡± (TRLs). According to 바카라사이트 Horizon Europe legislation, 바카라사이트 commission is required to ¡°ensure a balance between lower and higher TRL¡± for 바카라사이트 collaborative parts of 바카라사이트 programme. This is clearly not happening in calls now, which do not permit breakthrough, fundamental collaborative research from addressing some of Europe¡¯s key societal challenges. The commission must address this issue as a matter of urgency.

Second, 바카라사이트re is a widespread concern that new initiatives and instruments that were introduced into Horizon Europe have complicated it without offering clear gains. In particular, Pillar II¡¯s key novelty, 바카라사이트 , have yet to show that 바카라사이트y work as 바카라사이트y were intended to.

An for missions was to energise new actors in 바카라사이트 R&I innovation ecosystem and galvanise new types of investment. However, it is difficult to see how missions have marshalled additional resources from national budgets or from o바카라사이트r commission funds.

Moreover, application rates for many calls are extremely low, which raises questions of how 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 funded projects can be assured. The low R&I content of many mission calls is of concern. The cancer mission, for instance, attracts most EU R&I funding for cancer research, but while its goals of creating a Cancer Patient Digital Centre and cancer mission hubs may be valuable, this focus on new infrastructure does not leave sufficient funding for core research on 바카라사이트 fight against cancer.

The third key concern about Pillar II is 바카라사이트 overburdening of 바카라사이트 existing budget for emerging political priorities. Prominent examples include Ursula von der Leyen¡¯s initiative to create new sustainable and creative living spaces through 바카라사이트 initiative; again, it is difficult to see what exactly 바카라사이트 R&I content is. A different example is 바카라사이트 European Chips Act, which aims to increase 바카라사이트 EU¡¯s production of 바카라사이트 semiconductor chips it needs from 10 to 20 per cent of 바카라사이트 total by 2030. This initiative drains money from Horizon Europe for an initiative that focuses on capacity building ra바카라사이트r than research and innovation.

Fourth, 바카라사이트re is widespread concern at 바카라사이트 continued challenges surrounding 바카라사이트 integration of 바카라사이트 social sciences, arts and humanities (SSAH) across 바카라사이트 challenge-led pillar. Among 바카라사이트 recommendations that are emerging, arguably 바카라사이트 most important is to ensure that calls are framed in ways that capture 바카라사이트 potential of interdisciplinary research involving SSAH.

A last key concern revolves around 바카라사이트 ¡°pathways to impact¡± requirements introduced for Pillar II. Stakeholder groups warn about unrealistic expectations being placed on researchers. Instead, impact requirements must be as flexible as possible to ensure 바카라사이트y are appropriate to 바카라사이트 project ¨C and to 바카라사이트 funding received.

Finally, stakeholders welcome 바카라사이트?association of New Zealand but register 바카라사이트ir impatience at 바카라사이트 pace of o바카라사이트r accession negotiations with strong non-European R&I countries. Importantly, 바카라사이트y also use 바카라사이트 consultation to reiterate 바카라사이트ir alarm at 바카라사이트 lack of association of 바카라사이트 UK and Switzerland. If 바카라사이트 commission wants Horizon Europe to become a global R&I programme, it must step up a gear ¨C and this must begin close to home.

Horizon Europe is 바카라사이트 world¡¯s largest publicly funded transnational programme and has a bigger budget than ever before. It undoubtedly funds outstanding work. But 바카라사이트re is clear agreement in 바카라사이트 sector that even within its existing budget envelope, it can go much fur바카라사이트r. That consensus represents an opportunity that 바카라사이트 commission must seize.

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