Competitiveness, dual use, and research security, the new driving forces for FP10, and their possible implications for research.
The proposed Regulation for the next Research Framework Programme ‘Horizon Europe’ (FP10), along with the Specific Programme and the Regulation for a new European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), raises important questions. Specifically, how will the key factors of competitiveness, dual use, research security – the driving forces under FP10 – impact research?
It is surely no surprise that the FP10 and the ECF proposals include elements such as dual use, research security, resilience, and international competitiveness, since the EU is striving to reduce its dependence in critical areas and enhance its strategic autonomy in a context of geopolitical shifts, instabilities, and increasing global challenges.
Under FP10, a civil clause is missing, and Commissioner Zaharieva announced in the press conference on 17 July 2025 that FP10 will be “dual use by default”. This suggests that dual use will not only be applied in the case of the European Innovation Council (EIC) as initially foreseen, but also for projects under pillar II and beyond. In this context, it is essential to reference the recently published policy brief Making the most of EU research and innovation investments: Rethinking dual use by the Expert Group on the Economic and Societal Impact of Research & Innovation (ESIR), which advocates for adopting a ‘dual use by design’ approach, meaning that technologies are intentionally designed for both civilian and defence applications and integrated at early stages of research (see SwissCore article).
Regarding knowledge security, the proposal emphasizes that while enhancing economic and research security is essential, the priorities of the Union include maintaining open science and open access, following the principle ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’. It also mentions that beneficiaries must manage their results in accordance with their obligations established by the Horizon Europe Regulation regarding valorization and dissemination. However, these obligations may be adjusted in the work programmes (WP), call conditions, or grant agreement, where appropriate, based on policy considerations, including economic security.
When it comes to competitiveness, the ERC published this week a report with conclusions of a workshop in April 2025 to address Europe’s global competitiveness, in which a consensus across sectors was that there is a “need for long-term, risk-tolerant support for science, especially for frontier research that cannot thrive under short funding cycles of narrow industrial objectives”. At the same time, Science Europe, in its first reaction to the presented FP10 proposal, requested a broad definition of competitiveness that encompasses both societal and technological innovation, valuing long-term impact over short-term economic gains.
Considering the architecture of FP10, for bottom-up research, pillar I is of main relevance, in which Choose Europe is listed as a central feature. The Choose Europe approach is aligned with the ambition to position the EU as the best place in the world to conduct research, to attract the best researchers in Europe and from beyond. In the case of research, both the ERC and MSCA will operate under the title Choose Europe. Pilots will already be established under FP9: For MSCA, it is already announced in WP 2025, and for ERC, it will be in 2026, according to a recent announcement by ERC President Maria Leptin. It is also important to mention that, for the ERC, almost a doubling of funding compared to FP9 is foreseen, and that it will have a continued emphasis on bottom-up frontier research across all fields. MSCA will keep focus on “investigator-driven research across all scientific domains”. At the same time, the Society part under pillar II also foresees a bottom-up approach and will address global societal challenges. It entails topics such as migration, democracy, misinformation, social and economic transformation, inclusive societies, social cohesion, and the New European Bauhaus (NEB) Facility. In contrast, for collaborative projects under the ‘Competitiveness part’, which includes European Partnerships, will be managed through the ECF. This part will support the ECF policies and align with four strategic priorities: Clean Transition and Industrial Decarbonisation; Digital Leadership; Health, Biotech and Bioeconomy; Resilience, Defence industry and Space. These priorities aim to enhance the EU’s competitiveness and resilience. However, the question arises whether policy driven research will also be implemented in other programme parts, for instance, via the eleven proposed Moonshots, with the aim to boost EU-wide value creation and strategic autonomy. The reason is that there is no dedicated instrument mentioned for Moonshots, so it is likely that all parts of Horizon Europe can contribute to them. In this sense, for instance, the current framing of MSCA and ERC leaves room for concerns about this possibility.
In addition, Pilar II includes provisions for both low and high Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). A report published by the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) of the European Parliament on FP10, which conclusions are likely to be considered by the Parliament’s research committee when evaluating the Commission proposal, indicates among its recommendations, the importance of balancing blue sky research with projects that have higher TRLs. It warns that innovation may be stifled if the focus is solely on higher TRLs. This concern is also positively acknowledged in LERU’s recent response to the published FP10 proposal, which welcomes the inclusion of a balanced TRL approach.
Given that the next steps, including negotiations in the Council and the European Parliament, are expected to be completed by the end of 2027, it is still too early to determine how the proposal will ultimately affect research. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that the nature of science is an international endeavour, in which long-term investments with a bottom-up approach are needed to drive innovation and competitiveness.