University of Helsinki’s Key Messages for Next Framework Programme (FP10)

The EU’s Framework Programme for Research and Innovation plays a vital role in generating new knowledge, technologies, and innovations that enhance Europe’s sustainability, competitiveness, and overall well-being.
UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI’S KEY MESSAGES FOR NEXT FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME (FP10)

The development of the next framework programme should prioritize a substantial increase in funding, uphold the principle of excellence, foster open competition and promote research collaboration that generates new knowledge. As the drafting of the next framework programme progresses, it is essential to ensure that FP10 remains a standalone programme, driven primarily by science and research, rather than being reduced as an instrument for EU competitiveness and merged into a broader superfund.

Europe’s future preparedness and competitiveness require a solid knowledge base focused on experts, the right skills and knowledge produced by multidisciplinary research. High-quality research and its utilisation are key to improving productivity and people’s well-being. This statement has been made by, among others, the European Commissions’ expert group on the future framework programme, as well as in the reports submitted by Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi, which recommend urgent action to boost the competitiveness of the European Union and acknowledge the central role of research and innovation in achieving this goal.

The framework programme for research and innovation is a key platform for international multilateral collaboration, providing the EU with a unique competitive advantage. The framework programme generates significant added value by pooling resources and top-level expertise across national borders, enabling a greater impact than the programmes of individual countries on their own. Open competition and the allocation of funding to excellent R&I activities heighten their quality and impact in Europe and enable competition with, for example, the United States and China.

The University of Helsinki supports the proposals by the European Commission and Draghi on simplifying financial instruments and administration under the framework programme, as well as improving the efficiency of funding, which must be promoted from the user perspective.

Researchers and innovators must play a central role in implementing the framework programme. Trust in science and researchers’ skills as well as the opportunity to create new things make it possible to generate bold and innovative ideas that Europe urgently needs to remain competitive.

The University of Helsinki proposes the following: 

  1. Maintain FP10 as an independent programme
  2. Significantly increase funding under the framework programme and ensure it throughout the programme period.
  3. Base the funding criteria of the framework programme on excellence, open competition and responsibility.
  4. Focus the framework programme, in all of its pillars, on the generation of new knowledge through research collaboration and scientific leadership
  5. Further strengthen the impact and effectiveness of the framework programme. 
  6. Reduce and reform the funding instruments under the framework programme.
  7. Maintain open international collaboration under the framework programme.
  8. Exclude defence research from the framework programme.
1. MAINTAIN FP10 AS AN INDEPENDENT PROGRAMME

While the framework programme can and should play a crucial role in enhancing the EU’s competitiveness, it should not be driven by it. To solidify Europe's leadership in research and innovation, FP10 should remain a dedicated and independent programme, guided by scientific excellence rather than short-term economic or political priorities. This approach is also central to achieving sustainable competitiveness. 

University of Helsinki recommendations:

  • Preserve the autonomy and breadth of research and innovation: maintain the independence and diversity of research and innovation activities to effectively address a wide array of societal challenges.
  • Safeguard the autonomy of the European Research Council (ERC): The ERC's independence is crucial for its impact and effectiveness in advancing cutting-edge research across Europe.
  • Uphold the principle of scientific excellence and a long-term vision: The framework programme should be clearly distinguished from sector-specific programmes that focus on short-term goals, ensuring the maintenance of scientific excellence and a strategic, long-term perspective throughout its duration.
2. SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE FUNDING UNDER THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME AND ENSURE IT THROUGHOUT THE FUNDING PERIOD

According to its final evaluation, Horizon 2020, the previous framework programme, not only boosted scientific and technological advances in the EU’s twin transition but also significantly boosted economic growth: every euro invested in Horizon 2020 will ultimately bring roughly five euros in benefits to EU citizens by 2040. On average, the EU’s GDP will grow by €15.9 billion annually between 2014 and 2040.

Despite its broad societal and economic significance, the EU’s framework programme remains underfunded. This means that only roughly 30% of projects assessed as excellent receive funding, resulting in a significant share of untapped European research and innovation potential.

University of Helsinki recommendations:

  • Increase funding under the framework programme so that, in future, at least 80% of the projects assessed as excellent receive funding.
  • Increase investments particularly in Europe’s scientific excellence as well as research collaboration that generates new knowledge.
  • Ensure funding throughout the funding period: no funding should be transferred from the programme to new EU priorities.
  • Fund under the programme only initiatives representing research and innovation.
3. FUNDING CRITERIA IN THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME MUST BE BASED ON EXCELLENCE, OPEN COMPETITION AND RESPONSIBILITY

The only way to ensure the quality and impact of R&I activities is through a programme based on open competition that mobilises talent and resources, and promotes the establishment of top-level research communities.

University of Helsinki recommendations:

  • All activities under the next framework programme must meet the criteria for scientific excellence.
  • The promotion of open science, the observance of research integrity and ethics, and respect for research autonomy must remain the cross-cutting principles of the framework programme.
  • The assessment and implementation of funded projects must be transparent and responsible.
     
4. THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME MUST IN ALL OF ITS PILLARS FOCUS ON NEW KNOWLEDGE GENERATED BY RESEARCH COLLABORATION AND SCIENTIFIC LEADERSHIP

The framework programme must offer a balanced range of funding opportunities based on excellence for both individual and collaborative projects, as well as for the entire value chain of R&I activities. However, the impact of the next programme can only be increased if we are able to create new, radical innovations throughout the programme through research based on the highest scientific quality.

University of Helsinki recommendations:

  • Balance the value chain of R&I activities in the next programme and establish an instrument entitled ‘Research Action’ (RA) for challenge-based research collaboration that generates new knowledge. This action will increase the long-term impact of the framework programme and strengthen Europe’s ability to understand future challenges and prepare for them. 
  • The next framework programme must promote European collaborative projects equally at all technology readiness levels (TRL), including the lower levels of TRL 1–4.
  • The multidisciplinary nature and openness of academic research must be nurtured to take advantage of the potential of all fields of research, including the social sciences and humanities. An overly narrow focus or restrictions to funding compromise the opportunities of multidisciplinary research to respond to societal challenges. By focusing solely on major strategic initiatives and certain technologies, the ability to respond to other, unforeseen challenges is lost, endangering the role of research as a foundation for sustainable and comprehensive development.
5. STRENGTHENING THE IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

The framework programme must clearly differentiate the nature and goals of its funded projects from collaboration programmes aimed at implementing policy objectives in order to realise its role in generating new knowledge and creative innovation, as well as effectively and impactfully strengthening Europe’s competitiveness and resilience. 

In the framework programme, it is important to keep scientific excellence, European research collaboration and innovation activities under a single whole. Close interaction between research and those who apply it results in an increasingly efficient ecosystem that produces solutions for the needs of society and the economy.

Particular attention should be paid to simplifying the range of instruments in the framework programme, as well as to their user orientation, effectiveness and agility, particularly in the case of Pillar II. The framework programme must provide balanced support for R&I activities overall, which is why the continuity of collaboration projects must also be ensured in the next framework programme.

University of Helsinki recommendations:

  • Focus on promoting the best research and innovation and reduce the emphasis on short-term political goals. 
  • Support local bottom-up initiatives to complement the programme’s political top-down goals as well as support new research questions and innovations.
  • Increase the flexibility of work programmes and reduce detailed project-specific requirements. Less detailed calls for applications will make the framework programme an increasingly effective and predictable tool that seizes opportunities in a rapidly changing scientific, technological and business environment.
  • Make the expected oucomes for projects less dominant to stimulate impact rather than guidance, enabling genuine and innovative impact.
  • Increase support for consortia and projects of varying sizes. This could mean separate funding calls for smaller research projects, supplementing larger consortia and increasing the ability, dynamism and impact of projects. This requires calls for funding several projects. 
  • Fund only operations representing R&I activities. 
6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL FUNDING INSTRUMENTS IN THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

In the next framework programme, the range of funding instruments must be reduced, clarified and redesigned so that they serve high-quality R&I activities and are easy for applicants to understand and use. 

EXCELLENCE IN SCIENCE AND RESEARCH: ERC AND MSCA

Funding awarded by the European Research Council (ERC) is a key element of the EU’s framework programme, enabling significant breakthroughs in research and broadly impacting industry, the economy and society. From 2007 to 2023, ERC funding has made it possible to employ over 100,000 researchers, publish over 250,000 publications and secure over 2,500 patents.[1] The ERC also supports the training of the next generation of top-level researchers, which is essential for strengthening Europe’s competitiveness and innovation ecosystem. Moreover, the ERC and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) account for 40% of the international participation in the framework programme, making them the programme’s most significant channel for attracting international talent and retaining them in Europe.

Research of a high standard benefits from solid structures and an increase in the budget of the ERC. The independence of the ERC, its bottom-up approach and assessment based on excellence are factors contributing to the success of European breakthrough research, but too many high-level projects fail to secure funding to realise the full potential of the ERC. 

The budget for individual projects funded by the ERC should be increased to reflect the increased costs of research. The funding levels of ERC-funded projects have remained unchanged since the establishment of the programme, which undermines the purchasing power of funding, particularly in fields where research is extremely cost intensive. The current maximum amount of project funding is no longer sufficient to cover the needs of broad-based and high-quality projects, which limits the impact and quality of research.

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) should be retained as part of the framework programme to safeguard its status as a programme that promotes excellence in research and supports researchers’ individual career paths in Europe. The MSCA programme shares these goals with the European Research Council (ERC), making it an integral part of the European research and innovation ecosystem. 

High-quality research infrastructures are a prerequisite for top-level research. Their long-term sustainability and development are challenging, as research infrastructures require long-term investment as well as resources for maintenance, renewal and decommissioning.

In the future, infrastructure development and EU-level investments should focus more on the following challenges alongside the creation of new infrastructures: keeping ageing hardware and infrastructures up to date; managing and storing rapidly growing amounts of research data, including the long-term archiving of data, and ensuring their usability; ensuring access to research data in accordance with the principles of open science; coordinating infrastructures and developing them with a long-term approach; as well as recruiting skilled staff and managing human resources.

Investments in research infrastructures must be significantly increased in the next programme period to an extent that also covers the costs of using them more broadly.

INNOVATION ACTIVITIES

The role of the European Innovation Council (EIC) in research-based innovation activities should be strengthened and the mechanisms of innovation funding clarified to make the transition from research findings to innovations as seamless as possible. 

The University of Helsinki emphasises that the best ideas for research and development under the framework programme as a whole should be channelled to the EIC, and their utilisation must be promoted more effectively. The current EIC Transition instrument is a good example of such activities, and under the next framework programme investments in the instrument should be considerably increased to support the commercialisation of innovations increasingly effectively.

EIC Pathfinder is an extremely important instrument for multidisciplinary collaborative projects involving several operators. In the current programme, funding in Pathfinder calls is, however, overshadowed by other EIC activities. The instrument’s strong thematic emphasis reduces funding for open calls, which in turn limits the opportunities of researchers and research groups to participate in the opportunities offered by the instrument and versatilely take advantage of its potential.

The University of Helsinki proposes that a uniform and easily accessible funding mechanism similar to the ERC PoC instrument be established under the framework programme, which would be available for the funding instruments of all pillars. This would enable the broader utilisation of research results and improve the competitiveness of European innovation activities globally.

The University of Helsinki emphasises the need to assess the productivity of the EIE and EIT activities. The achievement of their goals must be examined and, when necessary, their operations reformed to better support the EIC’s goals and the broader European innovation sector.

PARTNERSHIPS

Simplify the European partnership landscape. The necessity of several different partnership models must be considered critically, and the rules of the models deployed must be more uniform and transparent. In particular, the regulation of co-funded partnerships is considered unclear. In the current framework programme, the number of partnerships has been reduced by combining themes, which strengthens synergies and collaboration, while also increasing their administrative burden.

A research element must be retained in partnerships, ensuring that researchers have the opportunity to have a say in partnership agendas. 

MISSIONS

The implementation and role of missions must be reviewed, particularly in terms of funding under the framework programme, which should be exclusively targeted at the research and innovation dimension of the missions. The University of Helsinki emphasises that missions must be implemented carefully to avoid compromising the goals of excellence in order to ensure regional coverage. The portfolio approach must maintain the impact of the missions by ensuring that projects support, in a balanced manner, both participation and excellence throughout Europe.

As missions transition to the scaling stage, it is essential to determine how top-level research can be integrated more closely into this stage, as its participation was already challenging at the initial stage. This requires critical assessment in drawing up the programme and a stronger investment in ensuring high-quality research and innovation outcomes.

7. OPEN INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION MUST CONTINUE UNDER THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

The EU must continue international collaboration to tackle its own and global challenges. The next framework programme must be kept open to global collaboration, and participation must be restricted only for particularly compelling reasons.

In strategic questions, the EU must look for partners outside its borders. While research security must be increased, it must not lead to additional bureaucracy in international collaboration.

University of Helsinki recommendations:

  • Support the development of due diligence and risk management procedures for research organisations to achieve consistency in protective measures.
  • Develop flexible association agreements that adapt to different levels of collaboration. Flexibility could enable the EU to take part in various forms of collaboration without compromising its goal of strategic autonomy.
8. DUAL-USE AND DEFENCE RESEARCH

Dual-use research must not ease the quality criteria for funding under the framework programme, nor should it unnecessarily restrict the freedom of science and research or international collaboration. Dual-use opportunities must be seen as a result of high-quality research rather than a strategic prequalification.

University of Helsinki recommendations:

  • Strengthen funding for defence research and development activities in a programme earmarked for them in the current European Defence Fund (EDF) or similar arrangements.
  • Strengthen the synergies between the framework programme for research and innovation and the EDF, while allocating separate shares in the Multiannual Financial Framework of the EU due to the different objectives of civil and defence research.
Questions? Please contact: