Without greater national commitments, Commission’s aim to transform European R&I will fail, says Jan Palmowski
The European Commission’s communication on the implementation of the European Research Area, published on 22 October, reviews progress made since the ‘New ERA’ was launched in 2021. Three years is not much time to bring about systemic change, but even so, its conclusions are sobering.
The commission notes, for example, that the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility, created in the wake of the pandemic, has given spending on research and innovation a significant boost. Without this, it is unlikely we would have seen European R&I expenditure reach a modest 2.3 per cent of GDP, still far below the 3.6 per cent invested by the US or the 5.2 per cent invested by South Korea.
This one-off stimulus is dwindling and will run out in 2026. Meanwhile, member states with strong research systems, such as the Netherlands, are cutting funding. There has clearly been no sea-change in national commitments to R&I since 2021.
The communication also acknowledges that Europe is behind in the ERA’s key priorities. For instance, while it highlights investment and progress in shared research infrastructures, it also notes that “most individual member states do not have the necessary financial or organisational resources to build, operate and upgrade such infrastructure”.
On the ERA’s achievements, the communication points to research assessment reform, progress on gender equality plans, and the creation or strengthening of a range of portals designed to create a European single market for research careers and skills. These include Euraxess, the ERA Talent Platform and the European Competence Platform for Researchers.
However, it will require a real culture change, not just new structures, to make the ERA’s goal—the free movement of researchers and ideas—a reality across Europe.
Work in progress
There have been some advances worthy of note.
The ERA Forum, in which stakeholders, national policymakers and the Commission meet regularly, has provided an important platform of mutual learning, understanding and inspiration. The ERA’s culture change should begin here.
Looking ahead, the report points to a “possible” legal initiative to strengthen academic freedom. The Commission appears to be preparing this, following strong pressure from the European Parliament, notably Christian Ehler MEP. Indeed, commissioner-designate for research and innovation Ekaterina Zaharieva has promised that scientific freedom would form a “core part” of EU legislation on the ERA.
The ERA’s convening power is also well suited for making policy on international collaboration and research security. On the complex issue of developing protocols and common standards around international collaboration, the ERA will continue to be a critical forum for ensuring that global collaboration remains a priority, remaining mindful of its risks, without losing sight of the risks of non-collaboration.
Finally, the report notes a number of national reforms in member states. Given that the ERA’s ambitions to improve research careers require national ownership, these are important beginnings, but much more is needed.
Central paradox
In sum, the ERA communication is a wake-up call, revealing the initiative’s huge opportunities and fundamental challenges. Crucially, it points to a paradox that is fast emerging as the central issue in the EU’s approach to R&I.
The next Commission’s approach to R&I is built around the goal of making Europe a global powerhouse in key emerging technologies, catching up with the US and China. For this, the Commission clearly envisages dramatic transformations in how R&I spending and the next Framework Programme are organised.
But the fate of the ERA shows that without greater national commitments, Commission president Ursula von der Leyen’s vision can never succeed.
On budgets, the framework programmes make up less than 10 per cent of EU public spending on R&I, but they have been remarkably successful at mitigating most member states’ stingy spending on this area.
On legislation, any ERA Act will be a paper tiger unless member states buy into the need for and scope of such a law. And will member states be willing to invest in joint technological infrastructure through ERA, acknowledging that they cannot be globally competitive alone?
Simply reorganising how R&I is done will not enable Europe to overcome its fragmentation and catchup. Indeed, it is likely to be counterproductive, because programmes designed around the needs of the budget directorate or focused on the business community will not bring global scientific excellence.
So, the fundamental question for Europe, revealed by the ERA communication, is: how can EU and member states’ efforts in R&I be sufficiently resourced, ambitious and impactful for both science and society?
Any answer requires deep commitments by member states to the EU’s vision for technological and scientific leadership. And it requires a new alignment around how to harness the strengths of the EU’s scientific ecosystem—among governments, but also within academic communities.
Jan Palmowski is secretary-general of the Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities.
