As guardian of the world’s largest transnational research and innovation programme, the European Commission’s directorate-general for research and innovation (DG RTD) is unique in being both a political body and a major research funder guided by research excellence.

However, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen is  considering a major shake-up of commission departments, which could see DG RTD lose its separate function and identity – and open the way to politics dominating the commission’s actions with regard to Horizon Europe.

Von der Leyen is rumoured to be considering creating a “super” department, DG Invest, that merges DG RTD with DG REGIO (managing regional funding), DG AGRI (managing the Common Agricultural Policy), DG Employment and DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. This new department would be responsible for agreeing with national governments what EU-funded would be spent on.

In addition, DG Invest could oversee the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), designed to scale up groundbreaking ideas for market uptake. Given the close intended connection between the ECF and the next Horizon Europe programme (FP10), the commission leadership appears to be tempted also to bring FP10 spending into the fold of DG Invest. This would have short-, medium- and long-term consequences.

ߣߣ��Ƶ

In the short run, work programmes and call texts could respond more closely to the logic of the European Competitiveness Fund than to the frontiers of science. Officials in DG Invest, created to foster competitiveness, could be subject to intense political lobbying from existing industrial sectors and their political representatives about the kind of economic future the EU should support. This could easily spill over into how R&I funding calls in Horizon Europe are framed, away from cutting-edge research problems.

The relationship between Horizon Europe and the ECF is already hotly contested between the commission (which wants a common governance between the two programmes) and the European Parliament (which insists on separate governance to respect the different rationales of the programmes). Whatever the policymakers agree on, any eventual deal will need to be implemented by the commission.

ߣߣ��Ƶ

One argument for merger is efficiency, as the commission is under significant pressure from member states to cut costs. But while a single rulebook across all funding instruments would simplify things for the commission, it would be a nightmare for Horizon Europe applicants, belying their distinctive requirements.

For instance, researchers need long timelines for application and tailored application forms that allow them to put their best case forward. Unlike fish quotas or agricultural products, research cannot be funded based on quantifiable outputs. The criteria must be originality and knowledge creation. This can be evaluated only by peers, not by officials.

In the medium term, officials who deeply care about R&I and what it can do will leave, frustrated by being in an over-politicised DG dominated by its own particular competitiveness logic. These are officials who understand what support research projects need to maximise their impact – but they will not be replaced by like-minded people.

In the longer term, the proposal for FP11, due in six years, could signal the end of the Horizon programmes as we have known them. Given that last year the existence of a stand-alone FP10 hung in the balance until the very end, it would be hugely tempting for DG Invest officials who regard research funding as a mere instrument of industrial and competitiveness policies to lead a “hostile” takeover of Horizon Europe by the currently much smaller ECF.

ߣߣ��Ƶ

The commission has been able to assume its predominance among European funders because of the expertise of its staff, its ability to galvanise European science ministries, and its explicit mission to strengthen European R&I. Its impact as a research funder has increased proportionately to the money it has had to allocate and the importance it assumed for universities.

Over the past 10 years, the commission has assumed a crucial role in pushing a sector-wide adoption of open science, research assessment reform and institutional gender equality plans. The proposal of a European Research Area Act later this year, which will include important measures to protect the freedom of scientific research, is testament to the importance of the EU as a rule-setter for Europe’s fragmented research space.

Merging different parts of the commission under a competitiveness heading may look appealing from on high – especially given the growing political importance of R&I. But putting Horizon Europe under the management of DG Invest would be a textbook case of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Jan Palmowski is secretary general of the Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities.

ߣߣ��Ƶ