17/09/2025
In an interview by Table Briefing, ahead of his keynote at the Hamburg Science Summit, Manuel Heitor explains why FP10 is a test case for Europe’s future.
Read here the publication in German.
Read in English below:
"Europe must turn brain drain into brain gain" – Manuel Heitor on FP10, scientific activism and research careers
EU advisor and former Portuguese science minister Manuel Heitor calls for more funding, independent governance, and scientific activism in Europe. Ahead of his keynote at the Hamburg Science Summit, he explains why FP10 is a test case for Europe’s future.
In your report last October, you recommended a substantial increase of the EU’s research and innovation budget. Ten months later, do you still think this is realistic, given the fiscal constraints of the member states?
The proposal presented by Commission President von der Leyen in July is an important step. She identified FP10 as a standalone programme – that’s a signal of support for science. But the overall envelope (175 billon Euro) remains smaller than the recommendations of Mario Draghi (200 billion Euro) and that of our report “Align, Act, Accelerate” (220 billion Euro). In addition, the EU needs more “own resources” to expand it. We should recall the unique precedent of 2020–21, when member states authorized the Commission to borrow on financial markets to fund recovery and resilience. We need more of this spirit and actions to secure an adequate budget for research and innovation towards the advancement of Europe, in a framework of prevention, preparedness and readiness.
Why is it so important that Horizon Europe remains a standalone programme?
Because the governance of research and innovation funding is very specific and must differ from industrial subsidies. It should involve a portfolio of funding schemes that need to be governed by experts, including scientists and innovators. The European Research Council (ERC) is the world’s best example of frontier research funding, precisely because of its independent governance. Its success shows us that FP10 should be governed more independently. There are worrying leaked documents suggesting attempts to weaken ERC’s autonomy – for instance, by making its president electable every two years. That would be a mistake. We need to strengthen, not weaken, independent governance.
You criticize the way the bulk of Horizon funding is distributed through large consortia. Why?
Except for ERC, Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) and the European Innovation Council (EIC), the data collected by EC shows that 78 percent of Horizon funds are distributed to consortia averaging 11 partners, each receiving only about 127,000 Euro per year for two to three years. This has become, eventually, an excellent tool to distribute funding and may please administrations throughout Europe, but it does not solve scientific or industrial or societal challenges. Worse, it induces precarious jobs: universities, research institutes and firms (mainly SMEs) hire young researchers and innovators only for the project’s short duration. That fuels frustration and, ultimately, political consequences. We must learn from ERC and EIC: fund projects longer, with real independence, and reduce job insecurity, by promoting better research careers in Europe, together with the quality of jobs for young researchers and innovators.
What about efficiency? Should Europe push more towards industry collaboration or even dual-use research?
We need a portfolio of incentives. Public and private spending complement each other – neither replaces the other. Look at pharma: progress in cancer research and the access of innovative pharma depends on both. The ERC–EIC pipeline already proves the point: two-thirds of EIC-funded startups came directly out of ERC frontier research within two years. That is a new and promising dynamic in Europe. But governance must remain in the hands of scientists and innovators – not just administrators.
Could the EIC become Europe’s DARPA?
The ARPA model depends on large budgets and, above all, full autonomy of programme managers. Europe has not yet created the conditions for that. Sprind in Germany is an interesting experiment, but still small. The EIC is young and improving. We recommend using it as a laboratory for new funding models through an “Experimental Unit” at EU level, with more independent programme managers. But we should not copy DARPA blindly; Europe needs its own model, and we need to understand our own constraints and unique opportunities.
Bureaucracy is a constant complaint in EU programs. How to reduce it?
Every framework programme in the last decades has delivered simplification, yet transaction costs have grown. Horizon Europe’s page limits, for instance, increased complexity rather than reducing it, driving institutions to hire consultants to help prepare and manage proposals. Data collected by EC shows that administrative and transaction costs now may exceed 19 percent of the overall budget – far too high. Further simplification must be thought of from the user’s point of view, not Brussels’.
You argue strongly for “scientific activism”. What do you mean by that?
Scientists must advocate more actively for research budgets. Farmers and other groups are far more vocal. With political fragility and the rise of populism in member states, the European Parliament will play a stronger role this time. We need scientists, innovators, and the media to push for investment in young generations and research. Otherwise, others will dominate the debate.
Turning to talent: How should Europe react to the attacks by the US government on universities and science?
We must turn brain drain into brain gain. For 20 years, Europe has lost thousands of young researchers and innovators to the U.S.. We propose “Choose Europe” as a co-funding scheme, expanding Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA), to improve and accelerate careers in Europe, together with the quality of jobs for young researchers. It is about offering stable jobs, not just fellowships. Institutions must abandon the bad practice of hiring only for project durations. Risk-taking is required: guarantee career tracks, with periodic assessments, but with security for young researchers. Otherwise, frustration will persist – and populists will benefit.
Regarding your keynote at the Hamburg Science Summit 2025: What is the most important message you want to transmit?
What is most important, is the understanding of the four vulnerabilities Europe faces in association with a new “complex of uncertainty”: the accelerated pace of technological change, together with the rise of Chinese science; the fragmentation of multilateralism with a shift from global to regional economies; the emerging societal challenges, including mental health, the access to innovative pharma and the continuous climate change we all are facing; and growing political and social polarization, with the support of young generations in many regions. The answers should consider more public investment in research, better jobs for young adults, and more risk-taking in innovation. If Europe succeeds in FP10 in close articulation with Member States, it can emerge stronger from the emerging uncertainty.
