Ursula von der Leyen¡¯s recent confirmation that the European Union¡¯s research funding programme will remain self-standing was a welcome response to urgent calls from the research and innovation (R&I) community.

To be sure, there is rich speculation about the nature of the ¡°tight connection¡± to the European Competitiveness Fund that the commission president nevertheless envisages. Still, we should be reassured by von der Leyen¡¯s recognition that Horizon Europe is ¡°an outstanding brand ¨C the most renowned research programme worldwide¡±: subsuming that brand under the ECF could only damage it.

But von der Leyen made four key points in her 20 May speech that require a clear response. First, she insisted on a heightened capacity for the commission to respond to new political priorities. Second, she called for fewer funding lines and reduced complexity. Third, she advocated a single rulebook for all applicants, including universities, to focus investment in strategic sectors and ensure seamless financial support from ideation to market diffusion and scale-up. And fourth, given the pressures on public budgets, she called for greater leveraging of private investment.

In considering how we can address these concerns, a good place to start should be , which was published just a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, this deeply political document hides as much as it reveals. For instance, the MEP Christian Ehler the siphoning off of Horizon Europe funds that could have been spent on R&I priorities such as cybersecurity to fund the . Indeed, that entire investment by the European Court of Auditors as overambitious and opaque. Yet the mid-term evaluation is silent on this key example of what happens if policymakers are free to take money from Horizon Europe to support cherry-picked new political ideas.

91ÇÑ×Ó

Nevertheless, some important points emerge from the mid-term evaluation on key goals, such as political prioritisation, simplification and the leveraging of private investment.

The chief political innovation of Horizon Europe, EU Missions, receives a devastating analysis. These , with their 2030 delivery date, account for more than 5 per cent of the entire Horizon Europe budget and are supposed to leverage funding from other EU programmes and directorates general. However, the evaluation is silent about whether any co-funding has emerged. While we read of much activity and citizen engagement, what has been produced in R&I is extremely unclear; in bibliometric terms, just 33 peer-reviewed articles have been produced to date. If the commission is concerned about waste in Horizon Europe, Missions could be a good place to start.

91ÇÑ×Ó

The evaluation suggests that efficiencies could be delivered by better clarity of purpose. For instance, the Cancer Mission¡¯s goal to ¡°improve¡± the lives of 3 million people affected by cancer is impossible to define in a meaningful way. Moreover, focusing on the greater inclusion of citizens ¨C in Missions and other parts of the programme ¨C cannot be the goal of an R&I programme in itself: that programme must improve scientific outcomes or the impact of innovation.

In terms of crowding in additional, non-EU investment, such as private or national public funding, the evaluation suggests taking an honest look at the efficacy of the instruments designed to do this. This confirms stakeholders¡¯ long-running concerns about difficulty of access for new organisations and European-level added value. Nevertheless, it seems safe to conclude that some partnerships will come out of any review with flying colours; these include the with the pharmaceutical industry and the , an initiative with African governments to develop new health treatments for the region.

The mid-term evaluation does note some successes in widening national participation in collaborative Horizon Europe projects. However, low-performing R&I countries still lag in terms of R&I spending and implementing reforms that would improve their competitiveness for Horizon Europe funding. The report sharpens the question of how countries that are further from Europe¡¯s core economic hubs can participate fully in instruments tailored to the innovation priorities of the European policy agenda.

Finally, the evaluation is very clear about the power of allowing non-EU members to associate to Horizon Europe, noting that international partners are disproportionately active in research consortia. And it underlines the strong success of the European Research Council and the Marie Sk?odowska-Curie Actions in attracting researchers from overseas and retaining research talent in Europe.

91ÇÑ×Ó

Clearly, then, the international reach of Horizon Europe is pivotal to the global brand that von der Leyen so much admires. In devising how to use R&I to better foster its own policy priorities, the commission cannot ignore how international partners add value to Europe¡¯s R&I.

Von der Leyen has, finally, provided a positive space to discuss, together, the successor to Horizon Europe (currently known as FP10, but surely likely ultimately to adopt a very similar brand). We only have seven weeks until the Commission publishes its draft proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework. We should use that time well.

Jan Palmowski is secretary general of the Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities.