Even as Brussels debates how many billions to allocate to research and innovation, a parallel concern is emerging from universities: Europe’s biggest barrier may not be funding levels at all, but the structure of its innovation system. That concern brought together together Ondřej Krutílek (ECR/CZ), member of the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), and Kamila Kozirog, Deputy Director for Research & Innovation at the European University Association.
While both agreed Europe is falling behind global competitors, they diverged on whether the core problem lies in funding levels or in the design of Europe’s research ecosystem.
The fragmentation problem
Money alone will not solve the EU’s innovatin gap. More important than the quantity of funding is the governance of funding programmes, Ms Kozirog said.
For universities, one of the biggest obstacles remains unequal access to EU funding. Asked whether it was difficult for them to access Horizon Europe funds, Ms Kozirog refrained from giving a simple yes or no answer. “Fragmentation is the key word,” she said.
Institutions with less experience in EU programmes often lack the support offices, networks and administrative capacity needed to compete successfully for grants. Meanwhile, the same universities and research institutions repeatedly secure funding, creating what several participants described as a widening divide.
“The rich get richer, also among universities,” Ms Kozirog said.
You might be interested
Because applications for Horizon Europe are not always successful, some universities, particularly public institutions with limited resources, eventually stop applying altogether.
“Once you don’t get funding, after months spent writing a proposal, you try once and you don’t go there again,” she said, adding that many institutions instead turn to structural funds, where chances of success are often higher.
“Governance is probably more important than money.”
— Kamila Kozirog, Deputy Director for Research & Innovation at the European University Association
Aside from the divide between public and private institutions, there is also a gap between widening countries — member states with lower research and innovation performance — and non-widening countries in terms of access to Horizon funding.
But beyond the rules themselves, Mr Krutílek argued, part of the problem is psychological. “Sometimes the problem is not the rules, but in your head,” he said, describing a mindset among some universities that EU projects are too distant or unattainable. “That’s what we need to change.”
Simplification: Everyone wants it. But how?
When speaking about rules, nearly every debate in Brussels now also includes a discussion about simplification. That is no different for research and innovation, where the challenge is simplifying areas that create excessive administrative burdens without weakening accountability.
Mr Krutílek highlighted several possible reforms, including wider use of lump-sum funding, two-stage evaluations and reduced reporting requirements.
But universities remain cautious about blanket simplification measures. Ms Kozirog said lump-sum funding can sometimes create more work rather than less, particularly for established institutions managing large and complex collaborations.
“Newcomers like lump sums, but for those more established, sometimes it’s more work,” she said.
Trust also remains an issue. “People like working with connections they already trust,” she noted, arguing that this can make it harder for newcomers to join established research networks.
Both speakers also stressed the need for balance between simplification and accountability for taxpayer money.
Research versus competitiveness?
One of the more politically sensitive debates surrounding the future framework programme concerns its relationship with the proposed European Competitiveness Fund. Universities have warned that linking research policy too closely to industrial competitiveness risks undermining fundamental science in favour of short-term market priorities.
Ms Kozirog argued that the two should complement rather than compete with each other, though she admitted that in practice this balance is highly difficult. “They should work hand in hand on equal footing,” she said, warning against a system where research priorities become dictated entirely by competitiveness objectives.
Ms Kozirog also pointed to weaknesses in Europe’s current system, where research and innovation programmes often fail to create a seamless pipeline from scientific discovery to commercial deployment.
Mr Krutílek broadly agreed, calling for stronger “synergies” between Horizon Europe and the future competitiveness fund while preserving the core structure of the research programme. “I would urge not to keep the European Competitiveness Fund as something more important than Horizon Europe,” he said.
Strategic objectives
Part of the competitiveness objectives can also be found in dual use technologies. The EU now has a proposal that makes research funding for military purposes (when also serving a civilian purpose) easier. While Ms Kozirog acknowledged the importance of such projects, she sees a similar risk as with tying research to competitiveness: civilian-focused research and defence-focused research have a completely different logic. In her view, the Commission has so far not taken those concern sufficiently into consideration. “We are not against supporting dual use, but the Commission’s vision behind that probably won’t fly”.
In similar vein, the EU has launched several ‘moonshots’: scientific-driven projects that focus on strategic areas such as clean aviation, the space economy, AI. When asked how Ms Kozirog looks at those projects, she noted that it remains unclear what the concretely consist of. “We are quite skeptical about what this would actually bring”, she said. In her view, they risk making the overall landscape “very complex”, and a focus on already existing projects in similar fields would make more sense.
Despite the constant focus on budgets, Ms Kozirog argued that governance may ultimately matter more than funding levels. “Governance is probably more important than money,” she said.
