Plans to break with a 40-year tradition and allow dual-use and defence-related projects to be funded under Horizon Europe have been branded ¡°unacceptable¡± by leading research universities.

The European Commission is European Union regulations concerning the €95.5 billion (?81.6 billion) programme, which currently only funds research limited to civil applications.

Should the new amendment be adopted, ¡°the reach of the European Innovation Council (EIC) will include start-ups working on dual-use and defence-related innovations¡±, the commission said in a press release.

¡°The objective is to foster a dynamic innovation ecosystem that speeds up the development and deployment of cutting-edge dual-use and defence technologies, like AI and cybersecurity,¡± the commission added.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

European countries have come under pressure to increase military spending in light of the war in Ukraine, with the Trump regime in the US threatening to pull or significantly scale back its support.

In a , the League of European Research Universities (Leru) described the ¡°fait accompli approach¡± of the EU body as ¡°unacceptable¡±.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

¡°Only a year ago, Europe¡¯s academic community made clear ¨C through its response to the EC¡¯s consultation on the next FP [framework programme] and dual use research ¨C its desire to maintain the FP¡¯s exclusive civilian focus, as it has been for over 40 years,¡± Leru secretary-general Kurt Deketelaere said in a statement.

¡°And now, overnight and without any new stakeholder consultation, the EC has decided to break with this long-standing principle by opening the FP to dual-use and defence-related funding through the EIC,¡± he continued.

¡°This can hardly be called a ¡®consulted policy¡¯ and will further erode the already fragile trust between Europe¡¯s academic sector and the EC. This move once again illustrates the complete lack of transparency around the future FP10.¡±

¡°The EC is charging ahead ¨C without transparency, consultation, or restraint,¡± Deketelaere added. ¡°It is now up to the European Parliament and the Competitiveness Council to push back.¡± Times Higher Education has contacted the European Commission for comment.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

Leru further raised concerns that the framework programme¡¯s budget could be redirected towards defence and dual-use research, a move that ¡°threatens to undermine its core purpose¡±.

¡°It is unacceptable that the FP¡¯s budget be raided each time a new political priority arises,¡± the university group said.

European sector leaders have grown increasingly alarmed in recent months about the commission¡¯s reticence concerning the successor to Horizon Europe. Major EU publications, among them January¡¯s Competitiveness Compass, hint that research and innovation funding could instead be folded into a ¡°European Competitiveness Fund¡±, without a ring-fenced budget.

Critics say this would give the commission too much control over research and innovation spending, and it would inevitably be forced to align more directly with current EU priorities. There are also fears that making it easier to divert funds to meet short-term political objectives would jeopardise the continuity of research projects and hamper Europe¡¯s ability to attract and retain top research talent.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

emily.dixon@timeshighereducation.com