Is Europe really open for science?

The European Commission has signalled a clear commitment to Research and Innovation (R&I), reflected both by Ursula der Leyen’s science-positive presidency, and in the recent Draghi report on EU competitiveness. Indeed, current proposals indicate that FP10 will have a budget approximately double that of the current Horizon Europe programme, fueling the impression that science in Europe is booming. Yet, taking a close look, certain countries and disciplines risk being left behind, with potential consequences for both European competitiveness and cohesion.

What science?

The Commission recognises the value of integrated research, and specifically the importance of engaging Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) in research across Horizon Europe Pillar 2. SSH are increasingly seen as critical to addressing social changes and supporting the twin transitions, including the uptake of technologies and improving the societal impact of research. To support SSH integration, the Commission has taken useful steps, including ‘flagging’ funding calls that require SSH input, as well as developing concepts like ‘societal readiness levels’. Mid-term evaluations of SSH integration in Horizon Europe also point to improvements in the share of funding involving SSH partners.

Despite these positive developments, there is a risk that European research funding increasingly sidelines the more critical branches of SSH. Many funding calls – especially in Pillar 2 – already pre-define the role for SSH in terms of uptake and impact. This framing excludes more critical research work that explores underlying problem definitions or places social innovation at the forefront. Such critical work is essential to understanding issues of trust, justice, identity and more; all of which are key to achieving policy ambitions such as cohesion and ensuring no one is left behind in the transition to carbon neutrality.

There are already concerns that an increased focus on competitiveness in research policy could further narrow the scope for more critical SSH perspectives in the upcoming FP10.

What Europe?

These concerns are further reinforced when looking beyond the European level to national funding landscapes in some member states. In some countries – particularly post 2008-accession states – the re-emergence of populist governments has been accompanied by a shift in the orientation of national science funding away from basic research. In the Czech Republic, for example, research and innovation activities have recently been restructured under the Ministry of Industry and Trade. This move indicates a positioning of R&I as more firmly supporting research activities that have direct economic application. At the same time, it risks narrowing the space for critical questions on issues that may be framed as being in opposition to economic policy, such as climate change.

In light of this narrowing space at the national level, us researchers working in critical SSH, particularly on issues such as climate and biodiversity, find ourselves placing our hopes in European funding, despite its evolving constraints.

However, access to such European research funding programmes remains strongly shaped by geography. Long-standing disparities persist in how different member states benefit from European research and innovation funding. Between 2021 and 2023, for example, four countries (Germany, France, Spain and the Netherlands) received more funding than the 15 widening countries combined – most of which are post-2008 accession member states. In 2024, Germany was the host location for 98 European Research Council (ERC) Starting Grants, compared with just two in the Czech Republic. While this distribution is often explained by the higher concentration of leading research institutions and talent in certain dominant countries, it also reflects a self-reinforcing dynamic. Researchers from widening countries are drawn to better-funded environments, while limited access to funding at home makes it difficult for these countries to compete and to retain talent.

European funding frameworks do acknowledge these differences and have introduced targeted measures to support capacity-building, including specific widening calls. However, researchers in these countries continue to face institutional barriers such as a higher prevalence of precarious contracts and a lack of administrative support – for instance, the absence of project offices to assist with grant applications.

A critical challenge for researchers in such contexts lies in securing the time to prepare competitive proposals, which can be particularly difficult when working on fully project-funded contracts – even at senior levels – and without adequate institutional support. Finding time and capacity to coordinate a consortium for a Horizon call, with its large administrative complexity, can therefore be close to unmanageable.

Creating a whole-of-Europe that is open for the whole of science

Not all of Europe, nor all scientific perspectives, are fully reflected in the vision of Europe as ‘open for science’. There is a risk that a limited number of research hotspots will continue to dominate in attracting funding to research topics within a narrow scope of uptake and impact. It can be tempting to view this concentration positively: it may reinforce excellence, and, in principle, the free movement of knowledge within the European Research Area suggests that such benefits are shared collectively.

Yet this narrative risks overlooking the unique contributions that can be offered by critical SSH researchers from widening countries. The assumptions and ways we see the world are different, shaped by our own experiences. For example, conceptions of food systems differ between a country that is dominated by industrial agriculture – where most people buy their food packaged in supermarkets – and countries where small-scale production, allotments and food-sharing remain central. Whether or not research sees and reflects these differences fundamentally shapes the questions being asked, the knowledge produced and its policy implications.

The risk becomes that citizens may fail to see their lived realities reflected in EU evidence and decision-making, with trust in science and evidence being eroded as a consequence.

These are precisely the challenges that the EU must address to achieve cohesion and competitiveness – and the very areas where critical SSH can offer essential insights, provided it is adequately supported and funded.

The views expressed in this #CriticalThinking article reflect those of the author(s) and not of Friends of Europe.