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.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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: