Europe: “Basic research should be central to the next Framework Programme”

The European Commission is currently preparing the successor to Horizon Europe, FP10, with mobilisation from higher learning and research organisations, as well as European universities. As the world faces numerous issues that call for science, what are the primary global challenges that the CNRS would like to see supported by the FP10?

The world indeed faces numerous challenges, whether they be technological, environmental, or geopolitical. The contributions of science are essential for all of them. This science grows out of basic research, the first stage in the process that will eventually ensure Europe’s economic, technological, and political sovereignty. The CNRS would like the future programme to prioritise supporting basic research, in addition to the transfer of research results toward society. This involves special focus on challenges whose scope surpasses the national level, such as climate change, biodiversity preservation, health issues, food security, and migration, in addition to technological and societal issues relating to digital technology, the energy transition, and new materials, among others.

With its budget of 95.5 billion euros, Horizon Europe (2021-2027) is an ambitious public funding programme for research and innovation. What are the CNRS’s expectations with regard to the FP10 budget?

It is of course ambitious, but not in line with what was proposed by the high-level group preparing Horizon Europe, presided over by Pascal Lamy. The budget should be evaluated by making international comparisons. If Europe wants to have an impact on the international stage, it must at least invest as much as its competitors. As such, the CNRS believes that the budget for the next framework programme should be doubled in relation to today’s Horizon Europe, to the tune of 200 billion euros. 

Such a budget would notably allow for funding all projects deemed excellent, which is not the case with the current programme. This especially concerns the European Research Council (ERC), including Synergy Grants1 , an exceptional European success whose development the CNRS supports with unwavering conviction. A budget of 200 billion euros would also provide greater support for research infrastructure, as well as collaborative projects from Pillar 2, which address major societal challenges. Finally, such a budget would increase mobility and strengthen the crucial European Research Area.

For Horizon Europe, the CNRS regretted that funding for basic research was essentially concentrated in just one of the programme’s pillars. What do you believe is the best way to stress the importance of basic research in the next FP10?

At a time when global challenges require more research in all scientific fields, the CNRS is defending the position that basic research should not be exclusively “curiosity-driven,” but also “goal-oriented.” Basic research is a driver of creativity, and is one of the bases for Europe’s capacity to innovate over the long term. With this in mind, we would like more support in order to fund targeted basic research with a low TRL(Technology Readiness Level)2 /SRL3  (Societal Readiness Level) in Pillar 2.

At its joint laboratories with industrial actors (VSE, SMB, ETI, and large enterprises), the CNRS conducts collaborative research on basic subjects co-defined with its partners. These fruitful collaborations contradict the notion that sometimes still exists, namely that the needs of enterprises are limited to innovation that is at an advanced stage of development. Enterprises also need basic research and cooperation with academic actors in order to anticipate and prepare the innovation of the future.

What about the European programme’s innovation tool? Should the European Innovation Council (EIC) be strengthened?

The CNRS fully supports the perpetuation of the (EIC) programme for innovation, through research funding laying the scientific foundation for groundbreaking technology4 , as well as through collaborative R&I projects between research organisations5 , SMBs, and start-ups at more advanced stages of technological maturity.

The CNRS also would like for the next European framework programme to foster the continuum ranging from basic research to innovation, doing so with a longer-term vision. There cannot be groundbreaking innovation without strong basic research.

What are the CNRS’s recommendations for ensuring continuity between the two programmes, and for providing the connection between basic research and innovation?

We propose maintaining the current architecture of three Pillars in order to facilitate the acculturation of research teams to European programmes. Continuity between the programmes is indeed essential, because the architecture of Horizon Europe has proven its effectiveness, but also out of concern for the legibility and appropriation of the upcoming FP10. The CNRS nevertheless believes that a stronger connection is needed between these Pillars to better ensure a continuum between research and innovation. This connection will ensure the smooth and effective transformation of basic research results into innovation projects. To this effect, we recommend greater overlap between the level of technological and societal readiness (TRL/SRL) for the 3 Pillars.

The CNRS is a major actor involved in almost all European research infrastructures. How does the CNRS see the role of this infrastructure in the upcoming FP10?

Research infrastructure (RI), such as the European Synchrotron (ESRF), the ACTRIS research infrastructure on the atmosphere, or Huma-Num, which brings HSS communities together around open science, are structural research tools that are essential for the European scientific community. They are pillars of basic science. In addition, they play a crucial role in supporting collaborative research, technological innovation, and European scientific sovereignty. They also attract numerous scientists from around the world, and contribute to Europe’s scientific impact and attractiveness.

The CNRS regretted that Horizon Europe’s funding for RI focused on thematic projects and the establishment of networks rather than funding infrastructure itself. The next framework programme must ensure the continuity of support for communities, by providing them with access to RI and by enabling the emergence of new RI, all while facilitating cooperation between them.

After Canada and New Zealand, in March 2024 South Korea joined the expanding group of countries associated with Horizon Europe. While these associations promote global openness and the broadening of international collaboration in research and innovation, they can raise questions, especially with respect to funding fairness, strategic orientation, and sovereignty. What is the CNRS’s position regarding the association of these third countries in the future funding programme.

International cooperation is part of the DNA of research, and the CNRS has increased its international partnerships, as demonstrated by its 80 international laboratories6 , its cooperation roadmap with African countries, and the various international research centres (IRC)7  created in recent years. The association of new third countries in the next European framework programme is a chance and an opportunity. It will intensify collaboration with the best global partners. Extending association to certain third countries should therefore continue in conformity with the values and principles dear to Europe, such as freedom of research, open science, research ethics and integrity, gender equality, and EU sovereignty, among others.

In January 2024, Denmark was the first to raise the issue of “widening”8  (which seeks to alleviate the gaps observed between countries within the European Research Area) when it published a position paper regarding the FP10, calling for this issue to be removed from the framework programme and funded by other sources. What is the CNRS’s opinion on the subject?

The disparities between European countries in terms of resources and success in European programmes is slowly evolving. Horizon Europe’s interdisciplinary pillar, known as WIDERA (Widening and ERA), seeks to reduce gaps within the European Research Area. Its laudable goal is to strengthen the European scientific ecosystem by making it more competitive, efficient, and equitable. The CNRS strongly supports bolstering collaboration with less developed European countries, all while making certain to never compromise scientific excellence. Widening must come from above, it is an absolute necessity. It must encompass all scientific fields, not just the thematic clusters of Pillar 2.The CNRS also suggests greater integration between this funding and various EU funds, such as the structural funds dedicated to European Cohesion Policy9 , in order to achieve enhanced synergy and efficiency.

Amid the current rush towards AI, with numerous countries mobilising to develop their R&D in this field, it is important to facilitate synergy between national programmes and European actions that will result in much larger budgets than those provided by a single country. What does the CNRS recommend?

It is a key issue that goes beyond just AI, for it also involves quantum technology and new materials, to cite just two examples. The next framework programme should facilitate synergy between national programmes and European actions, and should facilitate the launch of calls for proposals in fields suggested by member states over the course of the programme. This flexibility for the next programme could allow for more jointly funded and programmed calls, especially in connection with emerging subjects and the societal issues of Pillar 2.

In addition, the CNRS suggest sparing no efforts to constitute European critical masses around highly-strategic subjects (AI, quantum technology, new materials) by creating and supporting dedicated European centres over the next decade, whether they be distributed or concentrated at a single site.

Regarding the programme’s operational functioning, what environmental aspects would the CNRS like to see included in the assessment of FP10 projects? What are the practical problems that the CNRS hopes to see addressed with regard to calls for proposals and submissions?

In connection with its efforts to reduce its own environmental footprint, the CNRS has emphasized the significant impact that purchases have on greenhouse gas emissions. The purchase of new equipment is often seen as an indispensable guarantee of cutting-edge research, which can promote strong competition for European funding.  We therefore propose, for example, that the spending eligibility rules for the next programme adopt a “buy less, buy better” approach in order to reduce the overall environmental impact of research, without compromising excellence. The inclusion of an “eco-bonus” in projects striving to minimise their impact is an avenue that we are proposing, once again without having an impact on the excellence of supported projects.

With respect to practical aspects, the CNRS recommends extending the time period between the publication of calls for proposals and the submission deadline, in order to foster the effective formation of consortiums and give teams more time to prepare and submit quality proposals. We also propose generalising a two-step project submission process: a first submission of a short version of projects, followed by a complete detailed proposal for those that are selected.

Read the full statement from CNRS on the future European Framework Program for Research and Innovation, FP10 (10th Framework Program).

• 1Running 6 years and with a maximum amount of 10 million euros, these grants are designed for groups of 2-4 scientists from member states or associated countries to “address some of the world’s most formidable research problems spanning multiple scientific disciplines.” The ERC expects them to “help create 1,000 jobs for postdoctoral and doctoral researchers, as well as other members of the beneficiary’s research teams.”
• 2The TRL uses a scale from 1 to 9 (highest level) to assess a project’s technological maturity.
• 3The SRL scale now provides an assessment method for social innovation and its impact, and is complementary to the TRL scale dedicated to technological innovation. 
• 4EIC Pathfinder supports projects (TRL 1-4) exploring innovative and high-risk ideas that are likely to drive the development of new technologies, and eventually of groundbreaking innovation, with recipients receiving up to 3 M€.
• 5EIC Transition is designed for projects that have already been selected for the Pathfinder, FET Flagship, and ERC Proof of Concept tools. With an average budget of 2.5 M€, it supports project leaders seeking to develop the results of a research project, namely by validating their technological concept at a higher scale, and by exploring avenues for bringing it to market (TRL 4 to 5/6).  It therefore combines technological development, research, and market research.
• 6These tools structure a specific location with the significant and enduring presence of scientists from a limited number of French and foreign research institutions (a single foreign partner country).
• 7An IRC is an umbrella structure without walls that allows for strategic dialogue between the CNRS and an institution of excellence from another country, [akin to a university when taken as a whole.] An IRC marks the transition to a larger scale, strengthening an already existing relation through projects, networks, and even international laboratories, and leading to new, jointly-led programmes.
• 8Horizon Europe’s interdisciplinary pillar, commonly referred to as WIDERA (Widening and ERA), seeks to alleviate the gaps observed between countries within the European Research Area in order to strengthen the European ecosystem and make it more competitive, efficient, and fair.
• 9European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) support economic, social, and territorial cohesion, and aim to achieve the goals of the EU’s Europe 2020 strategy, with a view to generating intelligent, enduring, and inclusive growth.