After a year of anxiety about the future of European Union-funded research and innovation, it is excellent news that Horizon Europe is set to continue as the continent¡¯s flagship funding programme until at least 2035.

The European Commission had previously suggested that it might prefer to roll research and innovation funding into a broader fund to boost Europe¡¯s industrial competitiveness. However, the commission¡¯s proposal for the tenth Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP10), which will retain the Horizon Europe brand, envisages research and innovation remaining a stand-alone programme.

As part of the commission¡¯s Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the proposal will now go through a two-year negotiation process between the commission, the European Council (national ministers) and the European Parliament, before the beginning of the EU¡¯s next spending period in 2028. However, since the council and parliament have always been supportive of an independent research funding programme, there seems unlikely to be any shift on that.

Even better, the commission proposes to increase funding for Horizon Europe by about 90 per cent in real terms. Pillar III, focused on innovation, is the biggest winner, with its budget proposed to increase from the current €13 billion (?11.3 billion) to €38.8 billion. But Pillar I (excellent science) also does well. On a like-for-like basis, it increases from €22 billion to €41.5 billion.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

The breakdown between the European Research Council (ERC) and the Marie Sk?odowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) has not yet been made public, but these broad brushstrokes are hugely welcome. We must do everything we can to defend these budgets against cuts that the council may wish to make.

The draft MFF also makes clear that scientific excellence will remain the overarching objective of the whole programme, as well as the sole criterion on which MSCA and ERC funding is distributed; as currently, excellence, impact and implementation will be the evaluation criteria for the other two pillars. The articles that make this clear (3.1, 9.1 (SP) and 25 respectively) will be important references for future discussions because the commitment to scientific excellence is not so clear in many details, particularly in relation to the ERC.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

For instance, the ERC will be required to respect the ¡°corporate policies¡± of the commission. But what are those policies? Is this just a catch-all phrase to potentially limit the authority of the ERC¡¯s Scientific Council and president (whose terms will be reduced from 4+4 years to 2+2, potentially putting off outstanding candidates)?

Moreover, in establishing an overall scientific strategy, the Scientific Council is obliged to have regard to opportunities and ¡°European scientific needs¡±. Who will determine these needs ¨C the Scientific Council or the commission? If excellence really is the overall goal, any clipping of the ERC¡¯s wings would be counterproductive and must be challenged by the parliament and the European Council.

As for the MSCA, it will remain a bottom-up instrument, but ¡°if specific needs arise¡±, it may target specific thematic priorities, geographical locations or objectives ¡°in the pursuit of the Union strategic autonomy¡±. Again, the question is who would decide on such needs. It is critical that MSCA focus on the long-term interest of European research and innovation, not on the short-term reactions of policymakers to immediate challenges.

There is a strong appreciation in the draft MFF of the value of permitting third countries to associate to Horizon Europe, and existing association terms are proposed to roll over into the next programme. But the association regulation also explicitly states that it will be possible to exclude third countries (with the exception of EEA countries) from parts of the programme. This already happens, but it hadn¡¯t previously been codified.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

In a major shift, defence and dual-use research is no longer specifically excluded. One priority of Pillar II (global challenges and industrial competitiveness) is ¡°defence industry and space¡±. And the European Innovation Council (EIC, part of Pillar III) is charged, among others, with supporting high-tech dual-use and military start-ups. But Horizon Europe became one of the EU¡¯s strongest brands (as the draft regulation notes) as a civilian programme, addressing challenges that brought researchers together worldwide. It is not set up to be a funder of military research, which often involves very different players with very distinct infrastructures. So even if dual-use potential of research is permitted, it will be essential for the commission to ensure that the civilian focus of Horizon Europe prevails.

One of the biggest open questions is the relationship between Pillar II and the separate European Competitiveness Fund (ECF). It is a significant victory for the R&I community that Pillar II will follow the rules (such as those around excellence) of Horizon Europe, rather than the ECF. Also welcome is the fact that Horizon Europe will not be used to cross-subsidise the (expensive) deployment of new technology. But €68.2 billion in collaborative research will be dedicated to research priorities that shadow those of the ECF.

A Competitiveness Coordination Tool will apparently ensure synergies across both instruments and with national member states ¨C but what is this tool? Who is in charge? According to which criteria will research priorities be set? And over what timelines? Pillar II¡¯s capacity to genuinely push scientific boundaries is vital to delivering on the imperative to energise Europe¡¯s R&I base, attracting the best researchers and high-performing third countries.

The commission¡¯s proposal is a good place to start negotiations, with a strong budget, an appreciation of international collaboration and at least a rhetorical commitment to excellence across the board. Commissioner Zaharieva, director-general Lema?tre and their teams clearly fought hard and well.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

But now the real work begins of making sure that, over the next two years, the proposals¡¯ clarity and ambitions are strengthened rather than weakened.

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

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ