Research and innovation: Europe’s quest for a global comeback

November 27, 2024

dynamic digital world map emphasize Western Europe continental for AI powered global network and connectivity big data transfer and cyber technology network information exchange and telecommunication concept with 3D software and Based on imagery from NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/specials/blackmarble/2016/globalmaps/BlackMarb — Image: © greenbutterfly | iStock

Jan Palmowski, Secretary-General of The Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities, examines the themes of research and innovation in Europe’s quest for a global comeback

A few days after the outbreak of the Russian war of aggression on Ukraine, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz declared a ‘Zeitenwende’, an epochal change which “means that the world afterwards will no longer be the same as the world before”. (1) It is a notion that describes well the context in which the European Commission is considering its next multiannual financial framework (MFF, 2028-35), and the individual programmes within it – including the next Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP10).

In September 2024, Mario Draghi published a widely noted report commissioned by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, in which he demonstrated the growing decline of Europe’s competitiveness at a global level, as it lagged behind in developing advanced technologies. (2) Building on this theme, a further expert committee chaired by former Portuguese Minister Manuel Heitor warned that the European Union has fallen behind China and the U.S. in top-quality scientific publications in AI. Regarding registering AI-related patents in 2022, China recorded 61% globally, the U.S. 21%, and the EU a paltry 2%. (3) The writing is on the wall: Europe must urgently and decisively up its game in advanced technologies.

But President von der Leyen’s new College of Commissioners comes into office at a precarious time. Following President Trump’s re-election in the U.S., Europe will have to spend significantly more on defence. The EU will need to provide huge funds for the reconstruction of Ukraine, when that becomes possible. It may also need to channel more support towards the EU accession of the Western Balkan countries. And despite these pressures on EU spending, many countries, including those where the populist parties have been on a victory march in national elections, will fiercely oppose any increase in EU spending for the next MFF.

New financial demands on the next MFF will then be massive, and it will be extremely difficult to persuade governments to increase the size of the MFF. But clearly, it will also be challenging to cut existing large budget items, for instance on agriculture or the regions. Summer 2024’s visceral protests of Europe’s farmers against Brussels’ green agenda, to which the Commission caved in very quickly, are a strong reminder of the strength of these programmes’ current beneficiaries.

Will the Commission increase Europe’s punch in research and innovation?

Given these pressures, how does the Commission plan to increase Europe’s punch in research and innovation (R&I)?

First, the Commission is determined to strengthen breakthrough R&I through the European Research Council and the European Innovation Council, respectively. But in addition, it wants to reduce the number of R&I Instruments (mainly those in the current challenge-led pillar of Horizon Europe) and concentrate these on a few strategic priorities – it seems clear that these will be artificial intelligence, advanced materials, and the life sciences.

Second, while Europe’s public investment in R&I is lacklustre, its private investment is so far behind other leading competitors, including South Korea and the U.S. This raises the question to what extent we will see relatively more instruments designed to foster private investment, including public-private partnerships.

Third, since the Commission wishes to increase defence spending, we may see more defence research in the future. Moreover, the Commission is likely to open up FP10 to dual research – and a fundamental question is whether FP10 will positively encourage it. Depending on how the Commission positions FP10 in this regard, this may significantly alter the civilian nature of the Framework Programme.

Revisiting the priorities of the framework programme

Horizon Europe has made huge strides in internationalisation, with the accession of Canada, New Zealand, and other leading R&I nations in the queue. However, the strategic focus on the EU’s priorities (rather than on current UN Sustainable Development Goals) may undermine the progress we have seen. If the Commission is so keen on advanced technologies, it may be reluctant to share its discoveries with others
– an urge we must resist.

Revisiting the priorities of the framework programme

Finally, the Commission aims to ‘simplify’ FP10 and other programmes and increase the flexibility of the Commission to shift budgets from one year to the next in response to political priorities. One danger of simplification would be single rules of participation. At present, excellence is the predominant criterion for success for Horizon Europe (indeed, for the ERC, it is the only criterion for success)

If rules of participation were aligned across programmes, it would compromise the excellence principle, which could be replaced by a proposal that matches political objectives. Moreover, researchers need a stable framework against which to develop ideas for proposals – this would become impossible if priorities shifted annually.

If political compromises must be made to secure an ambitious budget for R&I, that may be a price worth paying. But that must not come at the expense of the excellence of the researchers it attracts or of the work it supports. Successive framework programmes have built a unique and rich experience supporting cross-border collaborative research. This must not be thrown overboard, but harnessed and built upon.