̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Leading university groups have expressed ¡°serious concerns¡± over the relationship between the successor to Horizon Europe and the proposed European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), urging the European Commission to safeguard the autonomy of the next framework programme.

The planned competitiveness fund has continued to alarm sector leaders even after commission president Ursula von der Leyen¡¯s May confirmation that the successor to Horizon Europe, also known as FP10, will be ¡°self-standing¡±, with many expressing particular concern that the funding programme could be overly influenced by EU political priorities.

In a policy paper published on 29 September, the European University Association (EUA) calls for?¡°greater clarity, consistency and alignment¡± on the connection between the Horizon successor and the competitiveness fund, lamenting ¡°vague and inconsistent language¡± in the proposals for both.

¡°The new competitiveness component of Horizon Europe, largely replacing today¡¯s Pillar II, at times seems to belong to Horizon Europe, while in many other instances it is presented as if already integrated into the ECF,¡± the EUA says. ¡°This ambiguity undermines the stated commitment to a truly independent programme.¡±

The commission¡¯s plans to intertwine the ECF with the second pillar of FP10, which funds research and innovation centred on ¡°global challenges and European industrial competitiveness¡±, are ¡°likely to create friction, delays and legal uncertainty as the new programme takes form, and very likely beyond¡±, the EUA warns.

The Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities raised similar concerns in its own recent reaction to the FP10 proposal, advising the commission ¡°to connect the ECF to the FP10 instead of tightly connecting FP10 to the ECF¡±.

¡°FP10 and research in general must not be regarded as mere instruments of industrial policies, especially if these are defined in a very top-down manner,¡± the guild continues.

¡°The alignment of the ECF and the collaborative research part of FP10 will require specific and appropriate levers to ensure policy priorities can be translated effectively to calls that push the frontiers of knowledge,¡± the umbrella body says, adding, ¡°It is critical that FP10 funds projects that are scientifically relevant. Projects addressing the needs of industry without generating new knowledge must be financed by other EU programmes than FP10.¡±

Among the other common concerns raised by the university groups was the planned €175 billion (?153 billion) budget for FP10. While both welcomed the budget increase, they urged the commission to go further, with the guild noting that the European Parliament and both the Draghi and Heitor reports recommended a budget of at least €200 billion.

The bodies also expressed reservations about the removal of a clause mandating that funded research must be solely civilian in nature. ¡°It is important to restate the value of academic freedom and open knowledge exchange and to translate this into a clear demarcation between civilian, dual and military uses of research,¡± the EUA report says. ¡°Such uses and their respective requirements must therefore be explicitly flagged in calls.¡±

¡°Instead of regarding FP10 as ¡®dual use by default¡¯, we contend that it must be designed to be civilian by default with the well-scoped and framed possibility to open to dual use,¡± the guild says, calling for military and defence research to be explicitly excluded.

emily.dixon@timeshighereducation.com