Image sources: Perspektywy Educational Foundation; J. Rozboud, Brno University of Technology
Alignment between research and business must not turn out to be subordination, say Orla Feely and Mattias Björnmalm
The EU Competitiveness Council’s dialogue on 29 May concerning the EU’s subsequent research and innovation framework programme FP10 confirmed welcome progress in the direction of establishing a Council place and opening negotiations with the European Parliament. But the central query now dealing with Europe is whether or not FP10 shall be designed as a set of negotiated compromises, or as a strategic instrument constructed for European influence?
The politically delicate points that stay unresolved—together with the connection between FP10 and the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), European partnerships, Widening and backside‑up collaborative research and innovation—aren’t technical particulars. They will decide whether or not Europe can organise research, schooling and innovation on the pace and scale required to compete globally in superior applied sciences.
The tensions are actual. Europe must stability excellence and cohesion, openness and strategic course, research and deployment, autonomy and accountability. These decisions shouldn’t be handled as separate bargaining issues. They ought to be addressed as components of 1 European system, designed around European added worth.
Building distributed concepts
This shouldn’t be an summary precept. It is the fundamental function of EU motion. Well-designed European programmes permit Europe to do greater than the identical assets distributed throughout 27 nationwide methods. They construct essential mass, mobilise capabilities, join expertise and create continent-wide competitors between the perfect concepts in science and know-how in ways in which no member state, nevertheless sturdy, can replicate alone.
The query guiding selections concerning the touchdown zone ought to, due to this fact, be easy: what can Europe obtain collectively that can’t be achieved individually?
In his landmark report on European competitiveness, Mario Draghi’s warning was clear. Europe must shut the innovation hole in superior applied sciences in contrast with different international powers. That requires pace, scale, coordination and the self-discipline to design devices that work collectively with out blurring their function. Europe wants an engineering mindset: outline the issue clearly, design efficient bridges between devices, and optimise the system as a complete.
That logic ought to information the connection between FP10 and the ECF. Europe wants stronger connections between research, innovation, deployment and industrial functionality. But alignment must not turn out to be subordination. FP10’s collaborative research pillar generates information and technological functionality by way of glorious transnational cooperation. The ECF ought to strengthen European competitiveness and deployment capability. Europe wants each.
Collaborate, don’t dominate
The touchdown zone ought to be a powerful FP10-ECF interface, not a takeover. Treating FP10’s collaborative pillar primarily as a supply mechanism for ECF coverage would add complexity and threat weakening the research base from which future applied sciences emerge.
The similar precept applies to European partnerships, which may create added worth the place coordination, shared funding and demanding mass allow what no nation or organisation may obtain alone. But future partnerships must be strategically chosen as a coherent portfolio, open to newcomers, justified by proof and ruled in opposition to clear aims. They shouldn’t turn out to be closed methods defending incumbents or legacy preparations. A smaller and sharper portfolio can strengthen influence—supplied that co‑governance, transparency and verifiable contributions are matched by openness and real European relevance.
Europe wants globally main centres of excellence in frontier science and superior applied sciences, and stronger scientific and technological functionality throughout the Union. Without excellence, Europe falls behind globally. Without cohesion, Europe fragments internally. A fragmented Europe may also fall behind globally.
The actual European query shouldn’t be whether or not to select between excellence and widening, however how to construct excellence throughout extra of Europe with out weakening excellence as the usual. That requires capability constructing, connectivity, nationwide reforms, institutional methods, cohesion funding, the ECF and FP10 working as complementary components of a coherent European system. The goal ought to be to join extra individuals, establishments and areas to European-level excellence, not to flip FP10 right into a distributive mechanism.
Finally, Europe must strengthen backside‑up collaborative research and innovation inside strategic priorities. Strategic course for collaborative research is effective, however future breakthroughs can’t be centrally predetermined. Many applied sciences essential to Europe’s future competitiveness will emerge from sudden mixtures of disciplines, individuals and concepts. FP10 ought to, due to this fact, assist much less prescriptive calls, real competitors and sufficient room for glorious consortia to outline pathways in the direction of shared European aims.
Build capability
The problem now could be to transfer from institutional and nationwide bargaining to European system design. Europe is not going to shut the innovation hole in superior applied sciences relative to different international powers by fragmenting effort, duplicating functionality or treating FP10 primarily as a distributive train. It will shut that hole by constructing stronger European capability by way of excellence, scale, coordination and cooperation.
FP10 must, due to this fact, be constructed around the European influence that may solely be achieved collectively. The query now could be whether or not Europe has the boldness, drive and sense of function to act accordingly.
Orla Feely is president of Cesaer and president of University College Dublin; Mattias Björnmalm is secretary-general of Cesaer.