The proposed European Competitiveness Fund ¡°should not overshadow¡± FP10, the research-oriented successor to Horizon Europe, leading university and research groups have said, calling for the two funding schemes to be ¡°complementary, not substitutes¡±.

Twelve European umbrella bodies, including the Coimbra Group, EU-LIFE, the European University Association and the Young European Research Universities Network, also stress the importance of ¡°early-stage collaborative research and innovation¡± in a joint open letter to the European Commission, European Parliament and the European Union member states.

While collaborative innovation at a higher technology readiness level ¡°can thrive under the industrially led formats that will be enforced under the European Competitiveness Fund¡±, a proposed funding framework with a focus on near-market technology, early-stage research requires ¡°tailored mechanisms that support open, flexible, excellent and curiosity-driven collaboration, free from the constraints of overly prescriptive calls¡±.

The degree of interconnection between the competitiveness fund and FP10 has remained an area of concern for the sector despite commission president Ursula von der Leyen¡¯s confirmation in May that the next framework programme will ¡°stay as a self-standing programme¡±.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

The League of European Research Universities and the Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities have called for ¡°clarity on what [the connection between the frameworks] entails and how it will be implemented¡±.

In the 11 July open letter, authors stress that early-stage collaboration ¡°is the backbone of Europe¡¯s capacity to generate new knowledge, develop enabling technologies, and build shared infrastructures that underpin entire sectors¡±.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Such research ¡°is essential in shaping Europe¡¯s ability to address global challenges¡±, they say, and ¡°enables the kind of cross-border, cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinary collaboration that gives rise to scientific breakthroughs and resilient innovation ecosystems¡±.

¡°It is key that this indispensable part of the programme remains firmly anchored and governed in FP10, and is properly supported at the European level, where its unique scale, scope, strategic value and impact cannot be replicated by national or regional schemes,¡± the umbrella bodies state.

The groups also highlight ¡°current structural weaknesses¡± in the second pillar of Horizon Europe, which is dedicated to tackling ¡°global challenges and European industrial competitiveness¡±. At present, they say, the pillar ¡°imposes excessive complexity, rigid consortium requirements and a prescriptive approach to expected outcomes, with too high focus on short-term implementation rather than new knowledge, solutions and innovations¡±.

A ¡±more balanced approach¡± across varying technology readiness levels should be implemented in FP10, the groups argue, ¡°within a simplified, flexible and researcher-friendly model¡±. The successor to Horizon Europe should ¡°[foster] a culture that embraces risk and values the creation of new knowledge alongside impact¡±.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

emily.dixon@timeshighereducation.com