Seeing the first contours of FP10

Reflections on the Hearing of Commissioner-designate Zaharieva

?

At her confirmation hearing in the European Parliament, the commissioner-designate for startups, research and innovation, Ekaterina Zaharieva, articulated the priorities for her upcoming mandate, if confirmed. This provided our first public glimpse of the commissioner-designate in action. But as important were the insights the hearing provided into the concerns of Members of the European parliament (MEPs), a co-legislator for the next framework programme.

Unsurprisingly, Ekaterina Zaharieva underlined the priorities set out in her Mission letter, on the basis of the Draghi report. But in addition, she had clearly taken note of the recent Heitor report. On this basis, she suggested not only strengthening the European Research Council (ERC) and the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA) (EIC), but also using the successful ERC Council as a model for other parts of FP10 (including the EIC), to strengthen the autonomy of FP10. This was not a direct endorsement of the new Councils proposed by the Heitor Report. But it was an explicit acknowledgement that the ERC’s autonomy should be praised and emulated, not undermined.

Interestingly, MEPs asked only one direct question about how to strengthen basic research, and none about the ERC nor, indeed, the MSCA. It was a reminder that, while we need to welcome the Commission’s apparent commitment to the ERC (including the autonomy of its Council), it’s something we cannot take for granted until FP10 is signed. And we need to be vigilant that fundamental research is not limited to the ERC. The critical role of the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) in fostering fundamental research must be recognised, as must be the critical role of fundamental research in addressing the EU’s strategic priorities.

By contrast, a quarter of all questions discussed start-ups and small and medium enterprises, and how they can increase their participation levels in #FP10 – this will clearly be a big issue for parliament in the coming years. Alongside the interest shown in the EIC (also in a quarter of the exchanges, sometimes overlapping), the European Parliament’s focus on boosting innovation, start-ups, and SMEs through FP10 was palpable.

?In fact, one of the key changes in FP10 will concern the EIC. Zaharieva clearly supports the proposal in the reports of Draghi and Heitor, that we need to learn from the US Advance Research Projects Agency (ARPA) to support breakthrough research and breakthrough innovation. We should welcome Zaharieva’s instincts not to create a new agency. However, it is still critical that in reforming the EIC, the essence of ARPA features – notably its focus on high-risk breakthrough research and innovation – is not lost in translation!

A very large chunk of Zaharieva’s comments focused on the need for simplification. Whether in the context of making the programme more inclusive of less developed R&I regions, making it more globally competitive, or making the EIC more effective – Zaharieva has clearly been impressed by the Heitor Report’s focus on grant decisions taking too long, with applications being too burdensome. Judging by this hearing, simplification will be a major focus of FP10.

Zaharieva also followed the Draghi and Heitor reports that there are too many priorities and funding pots in Horizon Europe. Accordingly, we can expect that FP10 will indeed significantly cut the number of priorities for collaborative research. The Commission has been consistent in underlining the strategic priorities of Artificial Intelligence (and Data), the Life Sciences, and Advanced Materials. These priorities also featured in the hearing. It will be interesting (and crucial) if we see a priority, alongside this, for health, as Zaharieva confirmed its importance to citizens in response to MEP’s questions.

?But one other priority emerged in the Parliament that is nowhere in the Commission’s current agenda – that of nuclear energy research. Put forward by speaker after speaker from Europe’s emboldened populist right, Zaharieva did not commit to this as a future priority. But, depending on how the new parliamentary dynamics play out, it is conceivable that we will also get a loosely-phrased priority around a carbon-free future that could accommodate this apparent ‘cri de coeur’ of the populist right.

Finally, Ekaterina Zaharieva was firm on the need for the next Framework Programme to become open to dual-use research, taking into account the current geopolitical climate. It is welcome that she left the door open for how this would be done, emphasizing the need for more stakeholder dialogue. Given the evident discomfort among universities with this prospect, which she acknowledged, it is important to look together for ways in which the civilian nature of the programme is maintained, for instance by not discriminating against proposals that do not have dual use potential.

The European Parliament hearing, then, presented excellent insight into the parliamentary context in which the Commission will need to develop FP10. In this process, we can clearly count on some highly insightful MEPs. Alongside the characteristically strong opening by Christian Ehler, followed by Dan Nica (both rapporteurs for Horizon Europe), excellent interventions included Ville Niinist? (on how to ensure a focus on innovation does not deflect from the need for fundamental research), Sofie Eriksson (on how to make FP10 more attractive for researchers) and Alexandra Geese (on how to ensure the alignment between FP10s digital and green goals). Benedetta Scuderi was highly astute in her question around the importance of civilian research, and Nikos Pappas made very valuable points in relation to Social Sciences and Humanities research, and widening participation. And Jüri Ratas is to be congratulated for underlining the central issue of academic freedom. In the past, ITRE has been a great ally of R&I, and with members like these, it will continue to be so in the future.

Before the hearing, perhaps the biggest fear surrounding Ekaterina Zaharieva’s nomination had been that she lacks background in R&I. This concern was completely dispelled. She was in full command of her brief, and defended core positions (e.g. on dual use research, or the participation of Hungarian universities) diplomatically and clearly. The hearing showed that it is precisely her rich political experience in a fragmented national context that could be her biggest asset. In Zaharieva, we would have a clear advocate for much bigger investment in R&I, at national and European levels. And we would have someone who clearly understands the need for a coherent FP10 that strengthens a wider European R&I ecosystem.

We should welcome Zaharieva’s nomination, urge her confirmation, and support her through the many challenges ahead.

#Universities #research #Innovation #MFF

Craig Nicholson UNICA - Network of Universities from the Capitals of Europe Maria Cristina Russo Irene Norstedt Martin Smith Stephanie Smith Martina Hartl Weitgruber Barbara Elisabeth Smits (former Grabenweger) Anja van Kessel Marijke Delemarre Svein St?len Marie Curie Alumni Association Christopher Smith Henriette Graf Lawrence(Rui) Dang, PhD, DSc, FRSA Paula Pihlava Bernold Hasenknopf Ignasi Salvado-Estivill Mostafa Moonir Shawrav Piia Bj?rn Véronique Halloin Luc Sels Jens Kreisel Coco Norén Tor Grande Kirsti Brekke Toril Nagelhus Hernes Margareth Hagen Gottfried Greve Dag Rune Olsen Klaus Mohn Jan W?pking Erik Renstr?m Fran?oise Smets