While drafting this article, the future of the European R&D programmes is far to be defined. The current Horizon Europe (HE) programme 2021-2027 has a total funding allowance of €93.5 billion. The EU’s €500 billion budget package for 2025-2027 is primarily aimed at supporting the digital and green transition. Key action include boosting the attractiveness of Europe for scientific talent and “make Europe a magnet for researchers” through the Choose Europe programme.
The recent proposal of a strategy to redesign and update the European research and technology infrastructures is another step towards achieving leadership in research and innovation.
The upcoming 2028-2034 HE Framework Programme (FP10)is still under discussion, with a proposed overall budget of €175 billion. The programme should focus on boosting the European productivity and competitiveness, and should see the launch of “moonshot” scientific-driven projects aimed at establishing the EU as a global leader in strategic fields.
The European Research Area and the position of the universities
Two of the proposed pillars of the FP10 programme should focus specifically on innovation (€38.8 bln) and on the European Research Area (ERA) (€16.3 bln). Among the possible actions announced by the Commission within the HE 2028-2034 proposal (link) is the simplification and standardisation of administrative processes for EU research funding. This goal has already attracted much criticism, as have the overall current European R&I situation and the proposed plans for the future. We summarise some of the more relevant interventions addressing these issues.
The public consultation on the Commission’s proposal for the ERA Act closed on 10 September. The final text is waited for Q1 2026. It should address reaching at least 3% GDP for R&D national expenditure. The “fifth freedom” on the movement of researchers, innovation and knowledge and valorisation of research and intellectual property are other key contents of the Act.
The League of European Research Universities (LERU) expressed a strong position on the current situation, according to which theEU funding for basic research is jeopardising. If the current Multiannual Financial Framework/FP10/European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) scenario is confirmed, says LERU, basic research is heading for disaster. The central issue, deeply discussed in a note published on its website, is the fact “the ECF cannot and will not fund research and innovation activities”. Consequently, all targets expressed by the Draghi’s report should be reconsidered, included the FP10 and ECF budget, and the distribution of funds within the FP10. According to LERU, in case the ECF cannot legally fund R&I and basic research, it should be obvious to transfer part of its budget to the FP10.
According to ALLEA, representing theEuropean Academies of Sciences and Humanities, the Act should legally anchor both academic freedom and the 3% R&D investment target and preserve and reinforce excellence-driven, investigator-led research. Harmonisation of qualification, more attractive career pathways especially for early- and mid-career researchers and promotion of research integrity and ethics are other requests.
The European Universities Association (EUA) responded to the ERA’s consultation with six recommendations. Among these are improved working conditions and flexible career pathways for researchers, a harmonised framework for an equitable open science ecosystem, legal clarity on how to rethink academic structures to improve incentives for innovation, protection and support to the freedom of scientific research, and national reforms to reach the target of investing 3% of GDP in R&I.
The position of the European Research Council
Simplification does not necessarily mean improved procedures, according to Maria Leptin, the president of the European Research Council (ERC) that strongly rejected the Commission’s proposal to standardise administrative rules for funding.
During the “Europe’s Innovation Challenge” session held on 18 September at the Hamburg Science Summit 2025, Mrs Leptin said that the proposed approach would not reflect the different goals and procedures that characterise the various EU research bodies (see more on Science|Business). According to the ERC president, the resulting risk would be “death to all programmes”, as each type of organisation (e.g. SMEs, research consortia and individual grants) would require tailor-made funding mechanisms.
The ERC Scientific Council proposed on 15 September measures to improve the 2026 and 2027 calls for proposals. The revision of the current rules has been based on monitoring of the work of the evaluation panels and the feedback received from the applicants.
The new ERC’s rules for grants’ evaluation
The proposed changes have to be approved by the European Commission before they can enter into force. They specifically address three areas of intervention, beginning with how the scientific proposal will be evaluated. Interestingly, Maria Leptin commented on the new set of rules, writing that “Unsurprisingly, even where most agree that change may be needed, not everyone favours the same solution. Thus, we often have to settle for a pragmatic solution over a seemingly ideal one”.
The revision of the scientific proposals aims to shorten the assessment cycle and more effectively manage the resulting workload for panel members. The current two-part structure of the proposals has been revised in order to clarify the focus of each part.
According to the ERC document, from the 2026 calls onwards, Part I of the Scientific Proposal should include information on the current state of knowledge and explain the scientific question and the project’s objectives. It should also present the overall approach chosen to achieve them. Part II should provide a detailed explanation of how the project will be implemented. This should include information on the research methodology, work plan, risk assessment and mitigating measures. It should also justify the requested budget and resources and provide any further necessary background information not included in Part I. The feasibility assessment previously included in Part I has been removed. Instead, the assessment will focus more closely on the approach proposed by the applicant to solve the scientific question.
The second area of intervention relates to theworkload of the evaluation panels, with the aim of making it more manageable given the increasing number of proposals received by the ERC every year. The number of panellists involved in reading a certain application before the first panel meeting will be reduced to three (from the previous four), although other reviewers can be assigned as required. Applicants will no longer receive written comments from the panels. Instead, each reviewer will provide an individual rating for each question relating to the principal investigator. Weaker proposals – i.e. those receiving a mark of 3.5 or lower from all reviewers – won’t be discussed further at the panel meeting unless otherwise requested. This is expected to reduce the number of proposals requiring discussion of approx. 30%.
The third area of intervention involves changing the eligibility windows for the Starting and Consolidator Grants, so to better reflect the career progression in different disciplines. From 2027 onwards, researchers will be eligible to apply for a Starting Grant immediately after defending their PhD or in the following ten years. Eligibility for Consolidator Grants will span from five to fifteen years after PhD defence. It will not be possible to apply for more than one Starting or Consolidator Grant, though there is no restriction on the number of Advanced Grant applications.
Advancements towards the Draghi’s agenda
The Competitiveness Compass, presented by Mario Draghi in September 2024, identified research and innovation as a key tool to improve European competitiveness. One year later, Mr Draghi commented on the current status of the proposed agenda’s advancement during a high-level conference held in Brussels on 16 September 2025.
In his speech, Mr Draghi welcomed the planned increase to the Horizon Europe budget, but added that “for breakthrough research, this will fall short unless the additional resources are concentrated into sizeable priority programmes”.
According to Mario Draghi, the US DARPA-style process should be the example to follow, focusing on high-risk, high-reward projects. Turning research into real applications more rapidly should be achieved through stronger industrial connections with academic institutions. Direct investment in a few large strategic deep tech initiatives should be prioritised, with implementation overseen by expert project managers rather than bureaucrats. Equally important would be combining private and public investment in disruptive innovation and large-scale industrial projects, as well as innovating public procurement rules to increase the European demand for critical technologies.
Mario Draghi also said that Europe should be able to protect competition while still promoting consolidation and innovation. He called for the creation of a fast-track process to complete the review of merger guidelines as soon as possible.
The role of dual-use research
In his speech, Mario Draghi also referred to dual-use technologies, particularly in relation to space and defence applications. He emphasised that the market dynamics for such technologies differ greatly from those typical of consumer markets. Consolidation, for instance, may not necessarily pose a threat to consumers. Instead, he said, “it can be a way to cut duplicated R&D, lower costs, accelerate innovation and focus procurement budgets”.
Dual-use technologies have potential applications either in everyday life or can serve strategic objectives related to defence, competitiveness, resilience, and security. They include most of the advanced technological domains that are considered critical by the EU Commission, such as artificial intelligence and biotechnologies.
The debate on dual-use technologies began in 2024 with the publication of a White Paper by the Commission. This approach has now been included in several new pieces of legislation, as for example theEuropean Preparedness Union Strategy (that also refers to the pharma and biotech sectors). In this contest, the “dual-use by design” approach represents a key concept that should be integrated into technology development whenever possible.
In July 2025, the Commissioner for Research and Innovation, Ekaterina Zaharieva, announced that dual-use projects would also be funded under the Horizon Europe programme, not just by the European Innovation Council (EIC). This marks a clear transition from the previous vision of the Framework Programme, which focused solely on ensuring scientific advancement in the different scientific domains and improvements in the lives of EU citizens.
The Commission has also recently published two expert reports on dual-use technologies. The first one addressesthe strategic role of dual-use research and innovation (R&I), while the second provides concrete examples and case studies of how dual-use R&I can be implemented in practice.
The EU Commission’s activism on dual-use technologies has found by now the EU Parliament divided, with some representatives supporting the new approach and others highlighting possible risks relating to reduced transparency, academic autonomy and increased burocreacy (read more on the ongoing debate on Science|Business and SwissCore).
We have to wait and see if and how dual-use research will be integrated into Horizon Europe and the EU’s other research programmes. In the meantime, we cannot fail to remember that pharmaceutical giants such as Pfizer and Eli Lilly started out selling drugs to armies during the civil war in the 1800s.
