IThe DFG’s proposals for a future
EU Framework Programme for
Research & Innovation that meets
Europe’s needs and ambitions

All DFG publications are compiled with care. Nevertheless, the authors, editors and the DFG do notassume any liability whatsoever, including in relation to this document, for the correctness of any
information, references or advice or for any potential printing errors.
The reproduction of product names, trade names or other distinguishing marks in this document does
not give rise to the assumption that they may be freely used by anyone. These may in fact be registeredtrademarks or other legally protected marks, even if they are not specifically designated as such.
The text of this publication is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
International (CC BY-SA 4.0) Licence. For the full text of the licence, see:https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.de.

May 2024

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.11278812

3Europe is at a turning point. Externally, its geopolitical situation has become more fragile following
the outbreak of violent conflict on the European continent. Internally, the rise of illiberal and antidemocratic populist movements is challenging the European project. Research has been a constitutive part of the European vision, a prerequisite for European societies to thrive, and an indispensable component of Europe’s strength vis-à-vis its competitors. Only recently did the corona
pandemic illustrate the significance of excellent research in providing solutions. What is more, it
showed that basic research can help provide answers to questions and challenges that have not
yet appeared on the horizon. Research can and will continue to contribute to these answers. Inorder to ensure this happens, however, adequate funding, programmes and framework conditions
are needed in Europe. The negotiations for the next EU Framework Programme for Research &Innovation (FP10) are crucial in this regard, as are the parallel negotiations on the future EU
Multiannual Financial Framework. In terms of ensuring a successful programme that can deliveron expectations as to its impact and benefits for the EU as a whole, researchers’ needs should
be both the starting point and the point of reference. As the central self-governing research funding organisation in Germany, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German ResearchFoundation) proposes the following ideas and recommendations for FP10:

A more ambitious and ring-fenced budget for FP10
Research is the key to Europe’s competitiveness. The ex-post evaluation of Horizon 2020 showsthat every euro invested in the programme will yield about five euros of benefit for EU citizens in
the mid-term. Yet this significance is not reflected in either the Horizon Europe budget or theresearch budgets of many European countries. On the contrary, funding has been repeatedlywithdrawn from the programme budget and redirected to new, unrelated policy priorities. If theEU and its member states aim for a strong and impactful framework programme, they need toprovide a budget that adequately reflects the value and importance of research and innovation(R&I).
► A significantly increased financial envelope is necessary to ensure that worldclass research can be conducted under excellent conditions. The oversubscription
rate of 74% in Horizon 2020 proves how massively the EU’s R&I budget needs to be
expanded to ensure that proposals that have passed the quality threshold receive
funding and do not fall victim to a budget shortage.
► The FP10 budget needs to be ring-fenced in order to make it stable and predictable
for the research community. New policy priorities should be addressed by means offresh additional money from the EU budget instead of redeployments from the budgetof framework programmes. A dedicated budget reserve could be set up within FP10to be able to respond quickly to such needs.

4► Research decommitments should be made available to the benefit of the programme again, as provided for in Art. 15 of the Financial Regulation, and not be
returned to member states. The nature of research requires a certain degree of flexibility with regard to the absorption of funds. In addition, this absorption could be enhanced by adopting the FP10 regulation and the subsequent working programmes indue time so as to allow for a timely start of the actual implementation of the programme.
► Researchers at risk should be able to access their own special intervention fundunder FP10 which can quickly provide them with support irrespective of specific conflict situations.
► Indirect costs should be eligible for funding in an amount of up to 30% of directeligible costs in order to account for the inflation of recent years and ease the financial burden for beneficiaries.
► A budget top-up for FP10 must not absolve member states from their obligations todo their part in strengthening R&I in the EU in line with the subsidiarity principle. They
need to ensure strong investments in their national research systems of at least
3% of their GDP, as this provides the basis for successful participation in R&I at EU
level.

Strong support for basic research and research infrastructures
FP10 needs to be attractive for all researchers, no matter if they engage in curiosity-driven orthematic research, applied research or experimental development. For years now, the researchcommunity has been calling for improvements in the support of basic research in addition to theinstruments in Pillar I, in particular an instrument that allows researchers to choose their topics
and their collaborating partners as freely as possible. Policymakers should listen to their demands. Sufficient funding and adequate programmes for basic research provide the foundationfor excellent research that will keep Europe at the forefront of global innovation.
► The enlarged budget of FP10 should especially benefit Pillar I so as to attract theworld’s top researchers with attractive funding conditions. Multiple projects funded bythe European Research Council (ERC) achieve groundbreaking scientific results andcontribute to major advances. However, both ERC and the Marie Skłodowska-Curie
Actions (MSCA) suffer from an enormous shortage of funding, with MSCA being thepart of the framework programme that would require the highest proportional budget
increase to be able to fund all proposals above the quality threshold.

5► Excellence should remain the sole selection criterion for all proposals submitted
under Pillar I and should be the guiding criterion for all parts of the programme. The
current governance structure of the ERC should be kept to ensure an independentand merit-based assessment of submitted proposals.
► The budget for research infrastructures should be increased as they are a prerequisite for excellent research. In order to enable world-class research, research
infrastructures should be supported across the scientific disciplines, including the social sciences, humanities and interdisciplinary research infrastructures. Transnational
access to research infrastructures should be improved, as this allows for researchmobility and the use of research infrastructures by researchers from all member states
and associated countries, including those from countries with a less competitive research system.

New possibilities for cooperation under FP10
Funding excellent research groups across national boundaries provides the real added value of
the EU Framework Programmes. Excellent researchers must be as free as possible to collaborate
with the best partners of their choice for their projects – also from countries outside the EU. However, the funding programmes in Horizon Europe are often not flexible enough and are subject totoo many restrictions as regards topic, eligible participants and the envisaged Technology Readiness Level (TRL). FP10 must provide for better and more flexible possibilities for cooperation in
the area of curiosity-driven research. This would also strengthen the role of the social sciences
and the humanities under FP10.
► A new instrument should allow researchers to work on topics they choose themselves in a bottom-up manner in transnational research consortia without specific requirements. Such an instrument, which could be set up in Pillar II, is a necessary
addition to the comprehensive top-down funding instruments dedicated to tackling
global challenges, as curiosity-driven research can also make a substantial contribution to overcoming such challenges.
► The partnerships should include a new, small and flexible instrument with a focus
on the implementation of joint calls. Although Horizon Europe allows for co-funding
joint calls through Co-funded Partnerships, the broad range of partners and activities
has reduced the incentive for national research funding organisations to set up transnational calls. At the same time, the Horizon 2020 ex-post evaluation demonstrated
the positive impact of the ERA-NET Cofunds, which has strengthened the consistency
between EU and national programmes. A revised version that allows for the flexible
co-funding of one or several joint calls should be part of the new partnership structure
under FP10.

6► FP10 should be sufficiently flexible to advance cooperation with participants fromthird countries which share European values, the association of the United Kingdomand Switzerland under FP10 being a priority task in that area. The budget for the ERC
Synergy Grants, which allow for the inclusion of excellent researchers from thirdstates, should be expanded.
► FP10 needs to ensure that the potential risks of cooperating with third countries
are carefully reflected upon without discouraging international cooperation.
Risk assessments need to be country-agnostic and take place on a case-by-casebasis, duly balancing potential risks with the anticipated benefits of the project concerned. In line with academic freedom and institutional autonomy, the final decision
about a project should be made by the researchers and research institutions themselves. If dual-use research is to be included in FP10, its funding should not be introduced at the cost of basic research.

Adequate framework conditions for research under FP10
In order to shape a comprehensive research ecosystem that allows researchers to thrive, FP10
needs to develop a coherent approach in policy areas related to research culture such as careerdevelopment, research assessment and open science. Policymakers also need to take greater
care to ensure that other EU legislation does not counteract the framework conditions provided
for under FP10. When new EU legislation is drafted outside the research sector, it is too frequently
the case that the implications for researchers fail to be taken into account.
► FP10 should fully embrace the research assessment reform promoted by the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA), ensuring that research assessment is primarily based on qualitative judgement and recognising the diverse
outputs, practices and activities that research involves. While the ERC has alreadyadapted to these principles, they should also be anchored as objectives in the future
FP10 regulation and integrated in other parts of FP10 as well. Open science should
not be used as a quality-related evaluation criterion at the level of individual projects.
► Open access should be further promoted in FP10: Academic publications resulting
from research funded under FP10 should in principle be published in open access.
Authors should be required to retain their intellectual property rights. Article Processing Charges should only be funded partially (via lump sums to institution s). In
addition, funding should be provided for the long-term preservation of open accesspublication and for the establishment of a Diamond Open Access regional hub in accordance with the Global Open Access Diamond Initiative.

7► Research data, source code and software should be “as open as possible, asclosed as necessary”. The FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) principles should be mandated and data curation should be adequately funded underFP10. The European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) needs to be consolidated, ensuring that governance is driven by the research community, with improved links to national research data management structures and ESFRI.
► FP10 applicants should be invited to reflect upon issues of sustainability potentially raised by the research processes contained in their proposals, where relevant.
These reflections must not become a criterion in the assessment process, however.
A broader application of the “Do No Significant Harm” principle to all EU-funded research projects would hamper academic freedom, as researchers may struggle toundertake certain types of research.
► Efforts to promote Equity, Diversity and Inclusion should be continued. Applicants should be invited to reflect upon EDI issues and on the relevance of sex, gender
and/or other dimensions of diversity in the content of research projects where relevant.
► FP10 participants should be required to comply with the revised ALLEA European
Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.
► The administrative governance of the programme needs to be simplified underFP10. Researchers should be able to focus on the content of the proposals they submit and not have to deal with overly complex requirements for the individual calls.

Enhancing synergies with other programmes
Enhancing synergies of FP10 with other EU programmes is not a one-way process. Targeted
support for R&I actions under other EU programmes should be increased as well. As recommended by the European Court of Auditors, a dedicated part of the structural funds could be
earmarked for strengthening R&I capacity and valorising R&I results. This would be particularly
attractive for researchers in “Widening” countries since this can contribute to improving conditions
and further enhancing their participation in FP10. By the same token, the focus of FP10 on supporting excellent research could be further strengthened.
A successful FP10 that delivers on its objectives depends on a preparation process that ensuresmeaningful and comprehensive involvement of all stakeholders. The DFG is committed to furtherengaging in this process.

8About us
The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) is the central selfgoverning research funding organisation in Germany. The DFG serves the sciences and humanities and promotes research of the highest quality in all its forms and disciplines at universities
and non-university research institutions. The focus is on funding projects developed by the academic community itself in the area of knowledge-driven research. The DFG funds research projects, creates competitive opportunities and conducts procedures for review, evaluation, selectionand decision-making in connection with research proposals, thereby helping to shape the overall
conditions and standards of academic research. The DFG maintains close dialogue with society,politics and business and supports the transfer of knowledge. It advises state institutions andinstitutions working in the public interest on issues relating to academic research and researchpolicy. Moreover, the DFG takes particular care to promote international cooperation, early-career
researchers, gender equality and diversity in the sciences and humanities.

9Working group “Quality in Clinical Research”
Members of the working group
Professor Dr. Bernd Fleischmann, Bonn (chair)
Professor Dr. Christopher Baum, Hanover
Professor Dr. Klaus-Michael Debatin, Ulm
Professor Dr. Simone Fulda, Frankfurt
Professor Dr. Wolfgang Herr, Regensburg
Professor Dr. Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg, Mannheim
Professor Dr. Georg Peters, Münster
Professor Dr. Esther von Stebut-Borschitz, Mainz
Dr. Frank Wissing, Berlin
Guests of the working group
Professor Julia Fischer, Göttingen
Professor
Dr. Michael Sendtner,(DFG)
Würzburg
DeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft
Professor
BrunnaTuschen-Caffier, Freiburg
GermanResearchFoundation
Professor40,Onur
Güntürkün,
BochumKennedyallee
53175
BonnPostaladdress:Roland
53170 Bonn,
Germany
ProfessorLill, Marburg
Phone: + 49 (0)228 885-1
Fax:DFG+ Head49 (0)228
885-2777
Officepostmaster@dfg.deDr. Katja Hartig, Bonnwww.dfg.de/en

Dr. Britta Mädge, Bonn
Dr. Tanja Kollei, Bonn
The SCCR’s Scientific Secretariat
Corina Schnabel M.A., Freiburg

This statement is supported and endorsed by the DFG Senate Commission on Animal Protection and Experimentation.