KU Leuven, one of Belgium's leading academic institutions, has cautioned that imposing a short-term competitiveness logic on European research funding without proper safeguards could undermine Europe’s long-term innovation capacity.
On 19 February, the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research, and Energy (ITRE) adopted a report calling for a significantly higher budget and simplified funding mechanisms for an upcoming 10th Research Framework Programme (FP10). The European Parliament will vote on the proposal in the upcoming plenary session on 11 March.
The report emphasised the need for increased funding, reduced bureaucracy, and stronger cross-border collaboration to maintain the EU’s competitive edge in science and technology.
In response, KU Leuven stated its preference for a standalone FP10 with a stable, ring-fenced, and significantly higher budget.
“Including research and innovation (R&I) funding in a European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) would not necessarily solve Europe’s competitiveness problem and means losing a framework programme with a proven track record,” said Jan D’hooge, PhD, vice-rector of research policy at KU Leuven.
D’hooge told Euractiv: “The ECF may create new challenges if not implemented with sufficient safeguards for budget stability, the independence of the European Research Council (ERC), bottom-up science, pre-competitive collaborative research, and interdisciplinarity.”
The need for a stronger FP10
According to Belgian MEP Wouter Beke (EPP), Belgium spent approximately 3.35% of its GPD on research and development, and Flemish research spending remains among the best in Europe.
“In my view, we must continue on this path and further invest in that European channel, ensuring it goes hand in hand with ample support for businesses and research institutions, something that is already working quite well today,” Beke told Euractiv.
KU Leuven highlighted that Horizon Europe accounts for nearly 10% of its total R&I budget.
Beke said that “To date, KU Leuven has received a €277.2M net contribution for participation in 465 Horizon Europe projects, but too many excellent ideas still go unfunded. To increase the success rates, we need to boost the R&I budget, and excellence should always remain the key criterion for evaluation.”
D’hooge also stressed the need to reduce bureaucracy in FP10.
He noted: “We need more calls for small to medium-sized consortia with smaller project budgets. Large-scale projects are much more complex to manage from start to finish, and you risk diverting resources away from actual research activities towards more complex proposal writing, grant preparation or governance processes.”
KU Leuven supports the European Commission’s plans to move towards less prescriptive, more open, and bottom-up topics in the next work programmes, especially for the collaborative projects in Pillar II.
“This would allow researchers to focus on what they do best: research. Rather than deciphering intricate call texts and trying to squeeze their expertise into predefined topics, researchers would have room for flexibility and creativity to tackle complex challenges in the most innovative and impactful way possible,” said D’hooge.
Balancing competitiveness and fundamental research
While there is growing momentum behind integrating FP10 into a larger European Competitiveness Fund, Beke has voiced concerns about the potential consequences for fundamental research.
“Although the idea of one large competitiveness fund sounds appealing, I view it with some caution,” said Beke, adding, “We still do not know exactly what it would entail, and it must not come at the expense of ground-breaking fundamental research.”
A call for a higher budget
Horizon Europe has currently allocated €93.4 billion over the 2021–2027 period, but Beke argues that a more substantial budget is required to maintain Europe’s research leadership.
“It is absolutely crucial to boost the budget. Horizon Europe’s current allocation must be increased. This European Framework Programme is a key pillar of our research area and represents the Union’s commitment to the goal of investing 3% of GDP in R&D. It truly helps attract talent and retain cutting-edge research in Europe,” he remarked.
While acknowledging the difficulty in achieving the proposed 75% funding target for eligible projects, Beke insisted that the EU must strive for significant improvements.
“I cannot yet say whether that 75% target is truly achievable, but we must strive for it. With so many applications, the current contribution remains suboptimal. That is why we now call for FP10 to be granted a budget of at least €220 billion, ensuring that the Union’s share moves toward the 3% goal.”
Closing the innovation gap
The EU continues to lag behind the US and China in R&D investment, spending only 2.24% of GDP in 2022, compared to 3.5% in the US and 2.4% in China.
For Beke, addressing this gap requires a clear and bold strategy.
“When Mario Draghi starts his report by highlighting the innovation gap, he does so for a reason. Innovation is the very foundation upon which our prosperity is built across all sectors,” said Beke.
KU Leuven sees the return of British universities to Horizon Europe as a positive development.
The university said “[we have] always advocated for the UK’s swift association to Horizon Europe because it is a win-win for everyone. Now that our British colleagues are back on board, they have quite a lot of catching up to do, so I am not too worried about losing our hard-earned first place as a higher education institution in Horizon Europe. And if British universities soon rise to the top in the FP again, that would still be a scenario from which KU Leuven benefits.”
[Edited by Vasiliki Angouridi, Brian Maguire]