Otmar Wiestler, the president of the Helmholtz Association, one of Germany’s leading research networks, has outlined his vision for the future of European research funding.
In an interview, Wiestler advocated for a shift in focus away from Horizon Europe’s missions and toward pan-European projects. He expressed concerns about the effectiveness of the missions, emphasizing the need for a more targeted and impactful approach in the upcoming Framework Programme 10 (FP10).
Replacing Horizon Europe’s missions
Wiestler criticized Horizon Europe’s missions, which were designed to achieve specific goals, such as promoting healthy soils and climate-neutral cities by 2035. Despite substantial funding, he argued that the missions have had limited impact and lack a clear focus on excellence and quality.
As an alternative, he proposed including new flagship projects in FP10 to ensure that Europe takes the lead in emerging technologies, particularly those originating from European laboratories.
One example Wiestler highlighted was the development of perovskite-based solar cells, which European researchers have played a significant role in advancing. However, he expressed concerns that unless Europe scales up production of these solar cells, China could surpass the continent, as it did with silicon solar panels in the past. Wiestler emphasized the need for targeted efforts and clear goals to develop such technologies in Europe at the highest possible level.
EU-built AI models
Wiestler also called for increased investment in European-built AI models to prevent further lagging behind the United States and China in artificial intelligence. He noted that the EU has fallen behind in AI and suggested that Europe should focus on applying AI technologies in important domains, such as healthcare and climate.
He proposed supporting a limited number of highly ambitious foundation AI models developed at a European scale, potentially industry-specific models, leveraging Europe’s access to relevant data and expertise.
Wiestler argued that the unique opportunity for Europe lies in domains where academic institutions have access to data, like medical and climate data, giving the continent an advantage over tech giants like Google and Microsoft, which lack access to such specialized datasets. He emphasized that funding public AI models would have a more significant impact than funding large missions.
Dual-use research and military capacity
As Europe faces challenges in maintaining military strength, particularly in light of an expansionist Russia, Wiestler discussed the possibility of permitting military dual-use research projects within FP10.
He acknowledged the need to reconsider Europe’s military activities and promote military research, but he emphasized that the issue of funding such research from the existing budget requires careful debate.
Wiestler advocated for greater interaction between the European Research Council (ERC), which funds curiosity-driven research, and the European Innovation Council (EIC), which is responsible for innovation funding.
He viewed this as an interesting approach to bridge the gap between fundamental research and applied innovation, emphasizing the importance of strengthening interactions between the two.
The president of the Helmholtz Association highlighted the growing disparity in scientific prowess among EU member states as a significant challenge for European research. While acknowledging the need to address this imbalance, he cautioned against sacrificing funding for excellence. Instead, he proposed systematic training, partnerships, and cooperation between strong and weaker institutions to close the gap.
Wiestler stressed the importance of investing in high-end world-class research infrastructures, such as scientific aircraft, ships, supercomputers, and particle accelerators. He described these infrastructures as magnets for international scientists and urged their inclusion in FP10.
Finally, Wiestler voiced a common concern among researchers by calling for a reduction in the extensive paperwork and reporting required for EU-funded projects. He argued that the current paperwork, while extensive, does not provide meaningful benefits and should be streamlined.
