EU warned over ‘de facto hierarchy’ in new research framework

A coalition of seven groups that represent European universities have called on the European Commission to substantially revise its proposed European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), warning that the current design could undermine the independence of fundamental research.

The joint statement published on 25 February sets out how universities want the €409 billion (£357 billion) ECF to work alongside FP10, the successor to Horizon Europe, due to run from 2028 to 2034, which has a proposed budget of €175 billion – nearly double the amount of the current framework.

The groups – The Guild, the European University Association, the League of European Research Universities, CESAER, the Coimbra Group, EU-LIFE and the Young European Research Universities Network – broadly welcome the creation of the ECF but warn that without proper legal safeguards, research under FP10 could end up serving the ECF’s competitiveness goals rather the pursuit of scientific excellence.

In the statement, the groups identify three specific “risks” of the commission’s current proposal. They warn it could create a “de facto hierarchy” where FP10 ends up serving short-term industrial goals; that “ill-fitting constraints” could be imported into frontier research; and the proposed single rulebook “simplifies processes for the commission rather than reducing complexities for beneficiaries”.

The tensions between research groups and the commission over the ECF have been building for some time. Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said in May last year that the next framework would “stay as a self-standing programme”, easing the worst fears across the sector, but questions remain about how closely the two programmes will be connected.

The coalition has proposed a clear division of roles between the two programmes, suggesting that FP10 should be a “bridge generator” that comes up with “excellent scientific knowledge” while ECF serves as a “bridge amplifier” focused on accelerating development and uptake through scaling and deployment.

They also want researchers to be able to move through the two programmes without starting the application process from scratch.

On governance, the groups are calling for two separate strategic boards, one for each programme, with structured coordination between them rather than a merged structure that could blur their purposes. “With the commission ensuring practical coordination, this governance model would enable alignment while safeguarding autonomy,” it said.

The coalition has also urged the commission to ensure the ECF remains open to non-EU countries, including Switzerland and the United Kingdom, arguing that excluding these countries could damage European competitiveness.

Following Brexit, the UK was excluded from full participation in the current Horizon Europe framework, but a deal was reached in 2023 and the country became an associated member the following year. Switzerland was similarly left out amid stalled EU-Swiss negotiations but signed an associated agreement in 2025.

The group’s statement comes ahead of the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy’s hearing on the ECF, scheduled on 25 February in Brussels, where MEPs and expert panellists will discuss the initiatives designed to boost EU competitiveness.

seher.asaf@timeshighereducation.com