̽»¨ÊÓƵ

The recent announcement that Australia has joined Singapore in exploratory talks to associate to Horizon Europe confirms that the programme¡¯s attractiveness extends far beyond Europe¡¯s borders. With New Zealand, South Korea and Canada already associated, and Japan in a process of accelerated negotiations, the current, ninth iteration of the European Union¡¯s ¡°framework programme¡± is proving its capacity to attract leading nations in research and innovation (R&I).

But as discussions about FP9¡¯s successor programme begin, there are questions about whether FP10 will be similarly attractive to non-member states ¨C near, as well as far.

On the face of it, the EU is set to welcome international R&I collaboration with open arms when FP10 ¨C which will retain the Horizon Europe name ¨C begins in 2028. The commission¡¯s proposal pledges to balance the benefits of collaboration against its risks but recognises that international cooperation will ¡°strengthen the Union¡¯s competitiveness and excellence in R&I¡±. And in an explanatory memorandum, the commission emphasises that the value of international cooperation underwrites the whole of FP10.

The document envisages varying levels of association. While it is silent on which countries would have access to which parts of FP10, there is nothing to suggest that the UK and Switzerland would not continue to have full access to the European Research Council (ERC) and Marie Sk?odowska-Curie Actions (MSCA), as well as the bottom-up instruments of the European Innovation Council (EIC). Given that a key argument for increasing funding to the ERC and MSCA has been their contribution to Europe¡¯s attractiveness to researchers, it is also likely that these instruments will remain closed to researchers from outside Europe and its neighbourhood.

What about FP10¡¯s second part, which will structure collaborative research? This is what all associate countries are most likely to have access to, and it will attract about 43 per cent of FP10 funding. Here the current relationship between the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) and FP10 still leaves open many questions. ?

The ECF lays down the four research areas (¡°policy windows¡±) to be addressed ¨C pledging a ¡°seamless investment journey from idea to market¡± ¨C with FP10 funding collaborative research at levels 1 (¡°basic principles observed¡±) to 8 (¡°system complete and qualified¡±). Those themes are clean transition, health/biotech, digital, and defence industry and space. But while, apart from defence, these are hardly contentious, there are questions about how the commission¡¯s stated intention to push Europe¡¯s competitiveness will translate into a research programme that seeks to push scientific frontiers. The commission insists that it ¡°should be possible¡± to fund large-scale product validation through FP10, for instance ¨C but that activity has little to do with R&I.

Moreover, article 25 of the codifies excellence, impact and implementation as the (only) award criteria. But the Danish presidency of the council has put this up for discussion by the representatives from member-states¡¯ ministries of economics and foreign affairs, which are charged with looking at key issues across all parts of the EU¡¯s proposed Multiannual Financial Framework for 2028 to 2034.

EU science ministers had already declared their commitment to the excellence principle in FP10. Taking responsibility for finalising funding criteria away from them means that considerations of industrial priority might also be adopted by the council, in a desire to align FP10 even more closely to the ECF.

This would be completely at odds with the of the UK, New Zealand and Switzerland that FP10 should prioritise ¡°excellent scientific research, development and innovation as a foundation for addressing shared priorities and challenges in the long-term¡±.

There are other questions about the place of excellence in FP10. In its implementation proposal, the commission is clear about the importance of scientific experts in the evaluation of proposals for the ERC. But this detail is completely missing in any provisions for collaborative research.

Instead, the proposal stipulates that evaluation committees for R&I projects need not be made up entirely of independent experts, leaving open the possibility that commission officials, for instance, could also play a significant role in both evaluating and ranking proposals. In a world-leading R&I programme, only independent experts should do the ranking; to proceed otherwise could risk, again, blurring the line between FP10 and the ECF.

Perhaps most strikingly, article 20 of the proposed FP10 regulation explicitly allows for the ECF¡¯s rules for ¡°accelerated¡± and ¡°targeted¡± selection procedures of grantees to apply. Accordingly, ¡°imperative public interest¡± projects could be funded up to three months before (!) a final evaluation is complete and eligibility checks submitted. Whatever their justification within the ECF, such procedures have no place in a world-leading R&I programme, and policymakers must articulate this clearly.

Finally, whereas currently Horizon Europe explicitly excludes dual-use research, the proposed FP10 regulation allows it. But there is a frustrating lack of detail. For instance, will calls with explicit reference to dual use be subject to different stipulations around intellectual property, consortium partner choice or publication? And will associated countries at war be restricted from participating in explicitly dual-use calls?

As policymakers in Brussels negotiate FP10¡¯s shape, they must strengthen it vis-¨¤-vis the ECF to ensure it is as attractive to the best researchers as it aspires to be. And that means ensuring that it pushes the boundaries of understanding across all it funds.

For all researchers, both in the EU and in associated countries, only an FP10 based on research excellence is worth having.

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