Leading university groups have joined together to push for the “substantial revision” of the European Commission’s proposed “competitiveness fund”, warning that the next research framework programme must not become “subordinate” to it.

Umbrella bodies including the European University Association (EUA), the Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities and the League of European Research Universities (LERU) have released a series of , stating that the changes “aim to reinforce clarity, coherence and effectiveness, enabling FP10 to continue delivering maximum European added value”.

“The amendments reflect a shared understanding of FP10’s role as the EU’s central programme for scientific excellence and early-stage innovation, while ensuring complementarity with other instruments, notably the [European Competitiveness Fund],” the groups said.

The commission’s description of the competitiveness fund, or ECF, as “tightly connected” to FP10, with research and innovation placed “at the heart of the Union’s economy and investment strategy”, has sparked significant concern among sector leaders.

51�Թ�

The guild has previously cautioned against considering the framework programme as a “mere instrument of industrial policies”, while the EUA has called for “greater clarity, consistency and alignment” on the connection between FP10 and the ECF.

The umbrella bodies’ suggested revision of the relevant regulation states instead that FP10 “should place research and innovation at the heart of Europe’s long-term competitiveness and prosperity, aiming to ensure coherence and complementarity with other Union initiatives, including the European Competitiveness Fund”.

51�Թ�

The amended regulation, the university groups said, “specifies coherence and complementarity while preserving the Programme’s independence,” adding: “It ensures that research and innovation remain central to Europe’s long-term competitiveness and prosperity without implying subordination” to instruments like the ECF.

Other recommended amendments to the current FP10 proposal include the removal of an emphasis on early-career researchers in the remit of the European Research Council, with the groups saying this responsibility should belong to the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA), and the explicit statement of “excellence as the sole criterion” for Horizon Europe funding.

The university groups further advised the exclusion of defence funding from FP10, as well as an extended commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion that “goes beyond gender equality to address age, disability, race and ethnicity, religion or belief, and sexual orientation”.

They also cautioned that while “Horizon Europe must contribute to increasing Europe's capacity to attract and retain talent”, this “should not be regarded as an objective of international collaboration”. If the framework programme “is thought as a means to accelerate brain drain to Europe, this will affect the competitiveness of our neighbours and ours in the long run,” the umbrella bodies said.

51�Թ�

In a statement, the groups said they “are united by a simple, urgent call: enable Europe to move at the speed and scale that the moment demands”.

“The decisions taken in the coming period must show that Europe is markedly stepping up its capacity to lead in cutting-edge research and innovation, in order to accelerate advanced technological and societal development underpinned by the latest scientific breakthroughs. This should be translated into real-world impact for boosting autonomy, competitiveness, prosperity, security, and societal resilience in Europe.”

emily.dixon@timeshighereducation.com