This week will be a momentous won according to Ann Mettler on Linkedin, and she is right. Not only because holidays will be officially over for most of Europe, but mainly because Draghi is foreseen to deliver his report on European Competitiveness. Ann uses an article by Politico as a basis for some very important and timely comments. Ann could not be more to the point when arguing about the conditions for competitiveness in Europe, she talks fearlessly about preferential treatment of EU companies in the EU (this one is so obvious is almost outrageous that we need a populist crisis to debate the argument openly – it is telling of our close mindedness sometimes), but my favourite two key ideas or arguments she makes and thinks should be in the Draghi report are:  

• Don’t only think ‘Europe in Europe’ but ‘Europe in the world’ – We have shrunk to only 17% of the global economy. As a result, we have to find a way to better position ourselves and tap into the growing markets outside of the EU, incl. the EIB which is forced to primarily invest in a shrinking market. And our competition policy has to (finally) view companies through a global prism, not only a Member State perspective.  

YES, Ann! And not only companies, but by extension also R&I programming. We are still locked in our small-minded Westphalian nation-statehood and seem to lose the capacity to see beyond our political walls.  

And then, Ann says: Don’t only think private sector but public sector – it’s half of the economy. And in relation to this, I can only quote her: “I understand that an individual consumer might decide based on price but I expect better of our public policy establishment which knows that in this geopolitical context what seems ‘cheaper’ in the short-run may be immeasurably ‘expensive’ in the long term. I have yet to see even an effort of a more sophisticated and comprehensive cost-benefit calculation as we lose industry after industry and dependencies (to autocracies) grow exponentially.”. 

In this edition, I also want to shift focus to an intriguing intersection of policy and funding: early access to innovative antivirals. Originally published in Science Business during the quieter summer months, the article highlights the financial significance of bringing antiviral therapeutics to market swiftly. What’s fascinating here isn’t just the medical advancements, but the proposed funding model rooted in ‘advanced market commitments’—essentially a financial framework that resembles a futures market. This model promises mutual benefits: researchers gain much-needed risk capital, and society benefits from accessible, affordable treatments. However, the success of such a model depends on convincing the pharmaceutical industry, which traditionally bears the brunt of the financial risks in drug development. The proposal, while ambitious, could serve as a blueprint not just for the pharma sector, but for other industries facing similar challenges. 

A quick note following our previous RoundUp podcast, where we have signalled some of the aspects of the EU positioning towards China’s rise as a scientific and technology producer. David Matthews, of Science Business, wrote an article reporting the conclusions of the “Berlin-based Mercator Institute for China Studies (Merics). Merics has raised the alarm that China has an increasingly sprawling set of tools to stop technology flowing out of its borders, as the country moves from a follower to a global innovation leader.”. The article basic reports on the policy tit for tat between China, the US and the EU, which is, again, portrayed as a follower of the US policy. David writes that: “The Dutch company ASML, for example, which makes world-leading semiconductor manufacturing machines, has blocked the export of some of its leading kit to China following US pressure.” and he quotes the report’s author saying that the EU, basically, does not understand technology innovation. I personally think this is a harsh assessment, which decontextualizes the EU way of thinking and doing. The argument, in the German institute’s report, rests on a direct comparison of two different models and implies that only one is right and possible. This is, again, a step towards confrontation and adds nothing constructive. Europe knows how to innovate, it just operates under a different model of capitalism than the US and China and the sooner we acknowledge, accept and valorise this, the better. In fact, the thread of articles on Science Business this week is quite telling, when seen together: the article I just mentioned comes next to one on how “the US’s new SECURE Centre could be a model for Germany to follow” and another on how “€13M cut threatens Germany’s international scientific collaborations”. In fact, this is great reporting from Science Business. It just confirms what I argued last week that: “We’re seeing a shift where necessary caution might be veering into the territory of isolationism, and that’s a dangerous path for global science.”. 

The European Commission has just dropped the final reports of several in-depth studies that are going to shape the future of Horizon Europe—and let me tell you, these aren’t just any reports. They’re the blueprint for how the EU’s flagship research programme is going to evolve in the coming years. 

First up, we’ve got the Evaluation Study on Innovative Europe, and it’s a mixed bag of news. The European Innovation Council (EIC) has been making waves, particularly with its Accelerator and Pathfinder programmes, which are driving some truly groundbreaking innovations. But here’s the kicker: despite all the hype, the success rate for applicants is still shockingly low—around 6.4% for the EIC Accelerator’s second phase. Sure, the blended finance model is bridging gaps for deep tech startups, but is it really democratizing innovation? Or are we just reinforcing a system where only the most resource-rich, well-connected players can succeed? 

We need to ask ourselves: Is the EIC doing enough to be inclusive? The report hints at a need for better coordination among EU instruments like the EIC, EIT, and EIE, but the reality is that fragmentation still plagues these initiatives. We’re seeing missed opportunities for synergy, which begs the question—are we maximizing the potential of Horizon Europe, or are we just running in circles? 

Next, let’s shift gears to the Horizon Europe and the Green Transition report. Here’s where things get interesting. The alignment with the European Green Deal is strong—90% of the projects are tied directly to Green Transition goals. That’s impressive, but let’s not pat ourselves on the back just yet. The report throws up some red flags, particularly about the broad scope of calls within Clusters 5 and 6. It’s great to cover all bases, but are we spreading ourselves too thin? There’s a risk here of diluting impact, especially when we consider the long-term targets like emissions reductions. Are these ambitious goals achievable with the current broad-brush strategy? 

Finally, let’s talk about the Evaluation Support Study on Horizon Europe’s Contribution to a Resilient Europe. This one covers three clusters: Health, Culture & Creativity, and Civil Security. The good news is, these clusters are on track, adapting well to the evolving challenges, whether it’s the ongoing health crises or the ever-present threats to cybersecurity. But here’s the thing—the report makes it clear that while these clusters are effective, there’s still a lot of room for improvement, particularly in how we exploit synergies across different clusters and programs. 

The potential is there, but are we capitalizing on it? The report suggests not. We’re still seeing underexploited synergies and inefficiencies in the proposal and selection processes. Yes, success rates are better than they were in Horizon 2020, but the process remains a bureaucratic labyrinth that’s tough to navigate, especially for smaller players. It’s a classic case of two steps forward, one step back. 

So, where does this leave us? 

Horizon Europe is undoubtedly a powerhouse for innovation, but these reports remind us that power needs to be wielded wisely. We need to fine-tune the balance between inclusivity and excellence, between broad goals and focused impact, and between collaboration and coherence. There’s a lot to celebrate, but there’s also a lot to work on. 

Now, to finalise today’s episode, something completely different: the Commission just opened a call for nominations for the Group of Scientific Advisors. The Group is a key part of the Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM). Their role is to provide high-quality, timely and independent scientific advice to the College of European Commissioners on any subject, including on policy issues that the European Parliament and the Council consider to be of major importance. 

This development is a procedural update and a crucial opportunity for Europe to strengthen the bridge between cutting-edge research and impactful policy-making. The call for nominations is especially timely as the EU faces increasingly complex challenges that require scientific expertise, innovative, and interdisciplinary approaches—areas where institutions like INESC institutes have consistently demonstrated leadership. 

The selection of advisors who can contribute to this process is crucial. Candidates will need to showcase a profound ability to integrate diverse scientific insights into actionable policies. This is particularly relevant in domains where INESC excels, such as technology-driven innovation, sustainable energy systems, and digital transformation, all of which are critical to the EU’s strategic objectives. 

For organizations and individuals contributing to this process, the focus should be on how their expertise can help navigate the intersection of science, technology, and policy. It’s about demonstrating a capacity to foresee the broader societal impacts of scientific developments and to communicate these insights effectively to policymakers. This aligns with the mission of institutions that are committed to advancing knowledge through research and ensuring that this knowledge serves the public good. 

This call is an invitation to shape the future of Europe through science and innovation. By bringing forward nominees who understand the strategic importance of research-driven policy, the EU can ensure that its decisions are informed by the most advanced and integrated scientific advice available. This is a moment to reaffirm the role of science in guiding Europe towards a sustainable and technologically advanced future, reflecting the strengths of organizations that lead in R&I across Europe and are particularly well positioned to provide an encompassing vision.  

Obrigado!!! And until the next episode!!! 

Ricardo Migueis

Head of INESC Brussels HUB  

We invite you to engage, to reflect, and to join us in shaping the discourse that will define the future of research and innovation in Europe. Check the full version of the newsletter below or directly on our website.