Introduction
But how does the EP draft report on FP affect me? I bet a lot of people in the European R&I space were asking themselves that question. I know I was, too.
Clearly, if the suggested expert-led governance of pillar 2 comes to pass, players in the research system will have to change their ways.
A Commission official I spoke to put it in existential terms. “But will I still have a job in FP10? I withered missions and strategic planning, but what will I do in the next Horizon Europe if the EP draft report goes through?” said this official, who has been drafting calls since FP7.
And so, this is my attempt to systematically think through the consequences for four groups of actors: researchers, research organisations, member states, and the Commission.
In this article, I will address the following:
- Why researchers would find this appealing.
- Which research organisations might struggle to adapt, including research support offices.
- How national administrations could gain from their enhanced powers, including national contact points.
- Why this is the natural next step in DG RTD’s development and could eventually strengthen the Commission’s position within the wider European research and innovation landscape.
This is clearly a thought experiment, and a personal one at that. The draft report was unfinished, and I haven't examined the proposed amendments or included speculation on what might survive trilogue negotiations. The goal is to consider how the model would operate in practice, and where it could be fine-tuned.
The bottom line is this: Europe must urgently invest more in R&I. While all of Europe might invest 3 trillion euros over the next seven years, China will invest 4.5 trillion. An effective and enlarged Horizon Europe is therefore indispensable, whether it’s funded at 220, 200, or even 175 billion. That case is best built through a first-in-class framework programme, as Draghi noted.
Finally, the chapters are structured as follows:
- Researchers, including (1) the attractive career steps, (2) research at the cutting edge, and (3) conflicts of interest.
- Research organisations, including (1) long-term planning, (2) proposal preparation, (3) a new engagement strategy, and (4) personnel policy.
- Member states, including (1) power and governance, (2) coordination at home, (3) national priorities and expert teams, and (4) a changing role for NCPs.
- Commission, including (1) a different kind of control, (2) a different job, (3) a brief history, and (4) why this is the natural next step.
A quick recap of expert-led governance
Before getting started, a quick recap of the suggestions made by the draft report.
This is the second part of a two-part series. In part one, I broke down the suggested governance for pillar 2 into four steps.
- The Commission and member states set priorities through work programmes.
- Two Research Councils, staffed by experts, advise on how to carry out that assignment.
- Expert teams draft call texts and manage a portfolio of projects, staffed by separate experts.
- The Commission and member states approve call texts or adapt them if serious concerns arise.
Crucially, the draft report suggests a system where the Commission and member states set priorities and have full control over funding allocation, including by approving call texts, while also empowering experts to deliver a better Programme, including by being more agile. The underlying notion is that public authorities should make political decisions, while experts provide advice on substance.
Interpretation of pillar 2 programming based on the draft report.
1. Researchers
I have little doubt that individual researchers would find this approach extremely appealing.
Researchers are the dedicated individuals who submit proposals, work on projects, and conduct evaluations, and who would also staff the Councils and expert teams. While they probably will not read this article, I am discussing the framework programme with them in mind, because they are at the forefront of knowledge and innovation.
I will address three topics that directly affect them: the double career opportunities offered by expert roles, the likely impact on their research, and the issue of conflicts of interest.
1.1 An attractive career step
First, both the expert teams and the Councils offer attractive career opportunities.
The draft report suggests that lead experts and their teams are appointed full-time for up to five years. They draft calls on a rolling basis, engage broadly with academia, industry, and the investment community, and manage a portfolio of projects across their lifetime. For a senior researcher with a strong track record, this is a compelling proposition.
Think about what the role involves: setting the intellectual agenda for a major funding priority across the Union, meeting a wide range of leading researchers and innovators, and doing so with a degree of institutional backing that an individual academic position rarely provides. This is, in effect, a senior research leadership role without departmental admin duties.
The non-renewable term is limiting, but it also creates a clear narrative: if you do this, you return with an exceptional network, deep knowledge of the European funding landscape, and a level of visibility hard to build any other way.
The Research Councils add a second opportunity. Members serve part-time for five years, renewable once. This is a more familiar model for senior researchers, comparable in spirit to serving on an ERC panel or advisory board, but with a more sustained and strategic remit.
Researchers who take on these roles will likely find that the question is not whether they are wanted after their term ends, but by whom.
1.2 Research at the cutting edge
Second, for most researchers, the more consequential change is how expert-led governance affects their proposals, given the handful of experts involved.
It has been a persistent complaint throughout the current Horizon Europe that call texts have become increasingly prescriptive and policy-laden. Calls specify not only the challenge to be addressed but also, often, the methodology, the consortium composition, and the expected outputs, in such detail that the researcher's job is less to propose a novel approach and more to translate an administrative template into a project.
And, to put it plainly, the number of coordination and support actions that should have been tenders instead has not gone unnoticed.
Expert-led governance addresses this directly. Call texts drafted by experts operating at the frontier of their field should look different from those drafted by EU officials navigating programme committees. They should be more attuned to scientific or technological opportunities and less administratively prescriptive. The explicit requirement that expert teams gather intelligence broadly reinforces this.
For researchers, the net result should be a pillar 2 that is harder to game and more rewarding to engage with honestly, which is precisely the kind of programme that attracts the best proposals.
1.3 Conflicts of interest
Finally, researchers will be concerned about conflicts of interest.
A first concern is acute: could a researcher be excluded from a call that their former colleague designed? Could an expert team leak a draft call text to their home institution ahead of publication?
A second concern is systemic: are experts impartial? A quantum computing expert will naturally think about the field's challenges through the lens of quantum computing. Expert teams drawn from specific research communities will, consciously or not, design calls that advantage those communities.
I am not particularly worried about the first concern, because safeguards are in place at every stage. Teams have multiple members, including one EU official, and receive feedback from the Councils. Call texts are approved by the Commission and member states, and today’s independent proposal evaluation process remains unchanged. Indeed, it would be quite difficult for an individual expert to consistently favour their former employer in a way that could survive all those checks.
On the systemic concern, the honest answer is that the risk is real, but probably smaller than the current risk of political distortion. Call texts shaped by member state programme committees represent a different form of bias towards national priorities and consensus.
Expert-led governance trades one form of influence for another. Whether the trade is beneficial depends on having the right experts, which is ultimately a question of selection quality, and on ensuring that the Research Councils provide genuine oversight, not merely a rubber stamp.
To summarise, I believe the draft report offers researchers attractive career opportunities (DARPA programme managers come to mind) while addressing the oft-heard complaint of prescriptiveness. Concerns about conflicts of interest should be addressed, but this is an argument for taking the design very seriously, not against the model.
[...]
Continue reading here.
