Bin your ERA stance, university representative tells EU presidency

Sector groups offer mixed take on draft government text about European Research Area and competitiveness

A section on the European Research Area in a draft ministerial text released this week should “go in the bin” because it does not reflect recent developments on the initiative, according to a university leader.

Published on 23 September, the draft text from the July-to-December Hungarian presidency of the Council of the EU member states is focused on “strengthening the competitiveness of the EU and overcoming the fragmentation of the ERA”.

The ERA is the EU’s decades-old policymaking initiative for harmonising and improving Europe’s research and innovation systems. It has been revamped in recent years amid fears that it was flagging, and it is currently developing priorities for 2025-27.

The text, which is likely to change before being adopted by EU R&I ministers, features a section that focuses specifically on the “role of the ERA in increasing competitiveness and decreasing fragmentation”. This section says that current and future ERA actions “need to be refocused in such a way that they have a stronger innovation or competitiveness perspective”.

It “supports a policy change for this purpose, so that the ERA is not only considered as a forum for horizontal, value-based topics but also as a political framework for boosting the union’s competitiveness”.

It also calls for “enhanced mobilisation and inclusion of representatives from different non-academic sectors”.

But Kurt Deketelaere, secretary-general of the League of European Research Universities, told Research Professional News that this “whole section can go in the bin”.

Need to focus on legislation

Deketelaere suggested that the text was drafted without sufficient attention being paid to the mission set out earlier this month for the EU’s next designated research commissioner, nor to the report on EU competitiveness published by former Italy prime minister Mario Draghi at around the same time. Some parts of the text, including the need to broaden input to the ERA, are “bullshit” in light of those recent developments, Deketelaere said.

Instead, in accordance with the mission letter to the commissioner-designate and an April report on the EU single market from Enrico Letta, another former Italy prime minister, the EU governments’ stance on the ERA should focus on the need for a legislative act to move it forward, Deketelaere said—in line with an opinion piece he recently wrote for RPN.

Mattias Björnmalm, secretary-general of the Cesaer group of science and technology universities, also told RPN that he thinks the Council should “endorse the Letta report and support the swift development and adoption of the ERA Act”.

While more positive about the text overall, Silvia Gómez Recio, secretary-general of the Young European Research Universities Network, said she was “less fond” of shifting the ERA actions towards more innovation and competitiveness.

“Many of the ongoing actions are preconditions for our competitiveness, so we don’t need to change those but maybe explain the narrative better. We would require more information on how the proposed policy change would look to understand the full implications of this,” she said.

However, Gómez Recio said that she welcomed the call for more actors to be involved in shaping the ERA through co-creation. “I agree that other sectors should also engage more,” she said. “Industry currently has a seat at the table, but they don’t use it.”

‘Misunderstanding’ of Draghi report

Björnmalm said he thinks the draft text starts well in referring to a need to improve the standing of R&I in the EU, but then it “seems to have missed or misunderstood the central concept as put forward by Draghi”.

References in the text to combating “brain drain”—the loss of talented people from certain geographical areas—within the EU and to equal access to EU R&I funding are on the wrong track, he suggested.

“We must stop seeing each other as competitors within Europe in these fields and instead adopt a fully Europe-wide approach to boosting science and technology,” he said.

Brain drain “should not be viewed solely from the perspective of regional imbalances within Europe but as a broader European challenge. We need to prevent talent from leaving Europe for the US or other regions.”

The draft text also refers to the need for “equal and unbiased access to R&I funding and collaborations for all actors based on scientific excellence”.

But Björnmalm said that EU R&I funding should not be seen through the “euro-in, euro-out lens” that the draft perpetuates, which has “severely hampered our collective ability to compete globally”. Instead, it should “embrace a fully European perspective”.

Deketelaere also criticised this aspect of the text, saying that EU R&I funding is already open to all member states on the same terms, with some countries winning more of it because they invest more in their national R&I systems.

“Don’t come asking for more EU money if you don’t invest as a country yourself in R&I,” he said.

Need for concrete incentives

Gómez Recio said that overall she found the text “well balanced”, which she attributed to it being informed by consultations with stakeholders.

Parts she praised included its call for increased investment in R&I, its call for basing competitiveness on sustainability and values, and its emphasis on the importance of evidence-based policymaking.

But she said that its call for a change of attitude towards innovation, which emphasises a need to promote role models and success stories, does not go far enough.

“We need to provide concrete incentives in terms of recognition and reward, which is a precondition for institutional culture change. This is where the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment comes in and should be more strongly supported by policymakers,” she said. Coara is helping to implement an EU-led agreement on assessment reform.

“Likewise, as long as careers in research and academia remain precarious, risk-taking will not be welcomed or facilitated,” Gómez Recio added. “For this and to tackle fragmentation…besides increased investments, [we need] the harmonisation of structural conditions across the EU in the form of more attractive research careers, improved access to research infrastructures, and incentives.”

She also said the text could have put more emphasis on the role of universities as bridge-builders in R&I ecosystems.

The presidency did not respond to a request for comment from RPN. The text is due to be discussed by national representatives on 30 September.