Universities have urged the European Union to “reconsider” a proposal that could see the second pillar of the successor to Horizon Europe, currently known as FP10, divided into two separate councils.
In a statement, the European Universities Association (EUA) said it “welcome[d]” much of a draft report published by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy of the European Parliament (ITRE), in which the committee assesses the current framework programme and sets out recommendations for FP10.
“The association especially welcomes the key recommendation of the report to preserve FP10 as a standalone EU programme and ensure that it becomes more user-oriented, science-led, effective and efficiently implemented,” the umbrella body said.
However, the university group said it “[did] not support” a proposal to divide Pillar 2 of the framework programme, dedicated to “global challenges and European industrial competitiveness”, into two distinct councils: a “Societal Challenges Council” and an “Industrial Competitiveness and Technology Council”. The proposal echoes one made in the Heitor report, published in October.
“There is a risk that dividing the current Pillar 2 into two separate councils could create silos. This would weaken the programme’s collaborative spirit, which is essential for addressing complex challenges that span both spheres,” the EUA said, further warning that the divide could see the competitiveness council prioritised over the council for societal challenges.
The umbrella body also raised concerns about plans to devote half of the budget for FP10 to the European Research Council (ERC) and the European Innovation Council (EIC), pointing to the “important role” played by other programmes such as the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, which “contribute significantly to Europe’s global competitiveness”.
Within the EIC, meanwhile, the EUA called for “strengthening” of the Pathfinder and Transition funding programmes, which focus on breakthrough innovation. “These instruments play a critical role in bridging the gap between research excellence and the transformation of findings into innovative solutions – one of the key challenges facing the European [research and innovation] ecosystem,” the university group said.
Moreover, the EUA flagged an ITRE recommendation that would see European university alliances developed into “European scientific institutes”, noting that the report offered “little detail” on the vision for said institutes.
Stressing that “academic purpose and vision” should “remain central” to university alliances, the group stated: “Alliances are not tools for implementing external policy objectives – they are the result of collaboration among autonomous academic institutions.”
“Building such deep, transnational partnerships takes time and sustained effort,” the EUA said. “Overburdening alliances with policy-driven goals risks undermining their potential, a concern that should be carefully considered in this specific proposal of the draft report.”
