EUROPE NO LONGER AT THE FOREFRONT
Who carried out the evaluation of the EU's ‘Horizon Europe’ funding programme for research and innovation?
Heinz Faßmann: A high-level group from the EU, consisting of 15 people. They were selected from 300 applications as well as a hearing following a public call for applications. Under the leadership of former Portuguese research minister Manuel Heitor, the group was deliberately heterogeneous. A balanced ratio of men and women was a given, as was a broad geographical distribution. Professors from universities were selected, but also experienced officials such as Georg Schütte, managing director of the VW Foundation, or Adam Piotrowski, CEO of a listed high-tech company in Poland.
Europe is falling behind and being overtaken by the USA and Asia.
Has the selection been successful?
Faßmann: Diversity is good, but not always beneficial. Sometimes particular interests come to the fore, while the bigger picture remains in the background. But perhaps that was also the Commission's strategy, not to let any one group become too powerful.
Many still see Europe as a leader in science, technology and intellectualism. Is that still the case?
Faßmann: Unfortunately, self-perception and external perception differ, and Europe is no longer what it used to be. For example, the EU's share of global scientific publications has fallen over the last two decades from around 26% in 2000 to 18% in 2022. The most cited scientific publications are not produced by researchers in Europe, but in China and the United States. The same picture emerges when looking at university rankings, the research rate or the number of patent applications.
Is Europe falling behind?
Faßmann: Yes, Europe is falling behind and is being overtaken by the USA and Asia. Europe is investing too little, especially in research and development.
What is the conclusion of the report on the EU's funding programme?
Faßmann: The figures are a wake-up call. We need to invest more in research, technological development and innovation. Research drives innovation, innovation is essential for a prosperous economy, and that is essential for the welfare state. That is why we call our report 'Align, Act, Accelerate - Research, technology and innovation to boost European competitiveness."
EUROPE MUST ACT NOW
What does that mean?
Faßmann: Align means alignment, coordination with other funds, but especially with the EU member states. Act means very clearly: ‘Act!’ And Accelerate indicates that we have to be faster: faster in funding, but also faster in implementing research results in concrete economically relevant actions.
The budget for the ERC grants should be doubled.
What are the recommendations?
Faßmann: The report contains 12 recommendations and is 94 pages long. We have considered four 'spheres' for the future direction of the Framework Programme, which, unlike the current 'pillars', are not isolated from each other. The first is excellence. Excellent basic research and the European Research Council's (ERC) grant scheme have proved to be a very successful way of funding European research, and future budgets for this should be doubled, partly to raise the low approval rate. The European Innovation Council (EIC), which has also proven very successful, should also receive a substantial increase in its budget in order to raise the extremely low approval rates, and more venture capital should be activated.
INCREASING COMPETITIVENESS
Does that have to do with the EU's competitiveness?
Faßmann: Yes, and this also applies to our second 'sphere'. Half of the Horizon Europe budget goes to industry, and these are very targeted investments. We are committed to industrial research, we are calling for an increase in funding and we are confirming the key instruments such as partnerships and collaborative projects, but we are critical of the way in which the themes are set. It is too top-down, too Commission-driven and too politicised. That is why we propose the creation of a 'European Technology and Industrial Competitiveness Council' (ETIC2), politically independent, modelled on the ERC and composed of recognised experts and industrial practitioners. The Council should and must advise the Commission on the definition of topics and the concrete implementation of funding programmes and provide an external perspective. We need to be better grounded in this area, we need to distance ourselves from the Commission, we need a transparent advisory structure, not vague lobbying.
We propose setting up a ‘European Council for Technology and Industrial Competitiveness’ that is politically independent.
What is the third ‘sphere’ about?
Faßmann: It's about societal challenges. In the current Horizon programme, they are mixed with industrial research. We do not think this is constructive. We face so many societal challenges and we need research to develop different policy options. The ageing of society, the rising costs of health care, the shortage of skilled workers, the issue of migration and climate change, the restructuring of energy systems and much more are waiting for sensible policy solutions. Research is needed to address these challenges in a targeted and rational way. The issues raised should not be left to interest-driven NGOs; instead, research is called upon to provide the scientific basis for policy decisions.
What specific topics are we talking about?
Faßmann: It is too early to say. That is why we are proposing the creation of a European Societal Challenges Council (ESC2), made up of experts and practitioners. This Council would advise on changing societal challenges, manage the implementation of the programme and monitor the results. And the different elements are complementary: for example, if we have well-designed policies to address skills shortages, we can support competitiveness.
MEMBER STATES MUST WORK TOGETHER
How do the member states come into play?
Faßmann: This brings us to the fourth "sphere", an attractive and inclusive research and innovation system in Europe. Member States have a crucial role to play here. Europe will only improve its competitiveness if Member States do not just sit back and wait for funding from Brussels, but also implement reforms and allocate resources themselves. It would also be essential to improve the distribution of expensive research infrastructure - such as high-performance computers, satellite stations and radio telescopes - which always serve as focal points for other research facilities. We advocate strengthening university alliances, and it would be important to review annually whether countries are meeting common research goals.
The report calls for funds of 220 billion euros.
Are there any other recommendations?
Faßmann: Further points are called for and demanded, for example, the creation of an experimental unit for the development of new testing and awarding mechanisms that deals with how to check AI-written proposals; the question of how to award research funds that are not just mainstream and whether the US-American Advanced Research Project Agency can be installed at the European level. Another demand is for radical simplification, which means eliminating inefficient programmes, introducing different accounting methods and broader calls for proposals.
What budget is expected for a new funding programme?
Faßmann: The programme will run from 2028 to 2034. The report calls for 220 billion euros in funding. In this respect, it does not differ significantly from the proposals of other stakeholders.
FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME AT AN END?
There are rumours that the framework programme will no longer exist in its current form – what do you think of that?
Faßmann: In the so-called 'mission letter' from Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to Commissioner-designate Ekaterina Zaharieva, whose portfolio includes start-ups, research and innovation, the 10th Framework Programme was not mentioned, much to everyone's surprise. Elements of the current Framework Programme are mentioned, which will obviously continue, such as the ERC or the EIC. However, the closed framework with the other initiatives is missing.
I would regret the disappearance of the funding programme. It is a European trademark.
What does that mean?
Faßmann: A ‘funding programme light’ is looming. I would very much regret the disappearance of the classic framework programme. Just as the Erasmus programme has done for student mobility, the funding programmes for research and innovation have become a European trademark, a flagship for European research funding. Everything is still in flux, but vigilance is required.