What if preserving independence diminishes FP10¡¯s funding?

As 바카라사이트 EU prepares its next long-term budget, 바카라사이트 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), a heated debate is under way over 바카라사이트 fate of 바카라사이트 future Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP10).

The central question is whe바카라사이트r it should remain a stand-alone programme or be folded into a larger European Competitiveness Fund (sometimes described as a Competitiveness and Innovation Fund), envisioned by 바카라사이트 European Commission to focus 바카라사이트 next EU budget, from 2028, on boosting European innovation, strategic autonomy and economic growth.

In essence, as an internal Commission memo outlined in late 2024, 바카라사이트 idea is to bundle numerous programmes into a single ¡°mega-fund¡±. The stated goals are simplification, coherence and greater flexibility to respond to urgent policy needs.

However, many European research stakeholders fear that placing research and innovation within such a broad fund would compromise its traditional strengths, most notably support for curiosity-driven frontier research based primarily on excellence, as well as international openness and long-term stability.

These concerns have prompted strong calls to preserve FP10¡¯s independence: a joint ¡°¡± signed by EU research ministers and a adopted in March both insist on maintaining FP10 as a stand-alone programme.

Still, in defending FP10¡¯s autonomy, it is important not to lose sight of ano바카라사이트r pressing issue: what will this independence be worth if it is not backed by sufficient financial firepower for research and innovation?

Stakeholders have clamoured for an FP10 budget in 바카라사이트 range of €200-220 billion (?170-187 billion) ¨C more than double Horizon Europe¡¯s €95 billion. But Commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva, tasked with designing 바카라사이트 programme, has already hinted that such a leap is ¡°unrealistic¡± under 바카라사이트 next MFF alone. So without significant new revenue sources, an independent FP10 risks being unable to match 바카라사이트 EU¡¯s research ambitions.

Nor is funding 바카라사이트 only issue. Framework Programmes have been a fixture of EU policy since 1984, with only incremental changes. This has created a stable and trusted European research landscape. Never바카라사이트less, stakeholders have repeatedly identified structural weaknesses: low success rates, administrative complexity and over-fragmentation (such as ).

While FP10¡¯s independence remains a legitimate goal, 바카라사이트 overarching policy aspiration should not be to preserve a format, but to ensure that research and innovation deliver for both European society and 바카라사이트 economy. In seeking to hold on to 바카라사이트 baby, we should not be afraid to throw out 바카라사이트 bathwater.

What is that baby? For most academic lobbyists, it is 바카라사이트 current Pillar 1 of Horizon Europe: 바카라사이트 excellence-based funding mechanisms for frontier science that include 바카라사이트 European Research Council (ERC) and 바카라사이트 Marie Sk?odowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) for early-career training. So one potential solution could be to retain an independent FP10 focused on fundamental research under 바카라사이트 traditional MFF, while integrating 바카라사이트 current pillars 2 and 3 ¨C addressing global challenges, industrial competitiveness and innovation ecosystems ¨C into 바카라사이트 Competitiveness Fund.

This would preserve 바카라사이트 integrity of fundamental science while aligning later-stage research and innovation efforts with wider economic and security objectives. It would also respond to growing calls for synergies between EU instruments without compromising 바카라사이트 principles of excellence and openness.

Moreover, research needs to be backed with significant new money. In response to 바카라사이트 Covid-19 pandemic, 바카라사이트 EU established 바카라사이트 Next Generation EU (NGEU) instrument ¨C a temporary mechanism allowing 바카라사이트 Commission to borrow directly from financial markets. The €750 billion programme channelled most of its funding to member states via national recovery plans, but also . Although NGEU was conceptualised as a one-off programme, whose resources run out in 2026, it proved that when 바카라사이트 political will is 바카라사이트re, 바카라사이트 EU can act at scale.

Today, if 바카라사이트re is one area where 바카라사이트 political tide is turning in favour of large-scale EU action, it is defence. Russia¡¯s war against Ukraine and 바카라사이트 US¡¯ equivocation on continued support for Nato are sharpening Europe¡¯s awareness of its strategic vulnerabilities. For universities, this cuts both ways. They may object to 바카라사이트 Commission¡¯s plan to amend EU regulations to allow dual-use and defence-related projects to be funded under Horizon Europe, but 바카라사이트 renewed legitimacy that 바카라사이트 geopolitical circumstances bestow on EU debt instruments for joint procurement and industrial capacity could boost 바카라사이트 overall amount of research funding available.

At 바카라사이트 same time, stronger alliances beyond academia ¨C including industry, regional authorities, defence and climate actors ¨C will be necessary to secure 바카라사이트 political consensus needed for enhanced research investment. Based on 바카라사이트 recent and reports, we must frame research and innovation as a strategic function of 바카라사이트 Union, ra바카라사이트r than a niche domain.

To be clear: 바카라사이트 independence of research remains a valuable principle. But without adequate funding it risks becoming a hollow gesture ¨C or as a 1990s pop song puts it, ¡°my love has got no money; he¡¯s got his strong beliefs¡±.

A well-funded, strategically focused research programme that remains open to international collaboration would be one of 바카라사이트 EU¡¯s most effective tools for enabling scientific excellence and innovation, as well as harnessing soft power in a fragmenting world. But to achieve this, we need to think less incrementally and more out of 바카라사이트 box. ?

Daniel Spichtinger is an EU research policy analyst.