Will greater targeting of funding endanger our R&I ecosystem?

Consecutive policies for research funding under the EU’s framework programmes for R&I have had a strong economic perspective towards growth and jobs. Yet more recently societal challenges such as climate change demographic change and health have come to the fore as major drivers for strategic funding. This emphasis has further increased expectations for funded research to lead to innovation and the implementation of knowledge as a fast track towards tangible solutions and societal impact. This evolution raises the question of whether more targeted strategic funding puts exploratory and opportunity-driven research at risk disturbing the ecosystem of research and innovation.

The EU is not unique in this trend towards strategic funding. The early model of scientist-driven bottom-up funding based on excellence and opportunities was initiated in the United States in the 1950’s. This was subsequently extended with instruments for innovation-oriented research and more recently with the results-oriented model exemplified by the mission approach. Taking health as a prime example of a societal challenge we performed an analysis of EU-funded projects under the framework programmes (FP) FP7 and Horizon 2020 in comparison with projects funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) over the same period. The data indicate that both funders have extended support for research in advanced stages towards innovation for health care and management.

However this comparison also illustrates differences in the approach of both funders as well as how they balance bottom-up and results-oriented funding. Within the EU funding for health is predominantly directed through a dedicated channel for collaborative research with prescriptive calls addressing different health challenges. Between the conclusion of FP7 in 2013 and Horizon Europe’s kick-off in 2021 basic biomedical research within this channel dwindled a trend that has persisted in Horizon Europe. Since FP7 the EU has also funded bottom-up discovery research through the European Research Council (ERC) which has continued its funding of basic biomedical research. In contrast NIH funding for collaborative research has maintained a mix of early biomedical research and advanced health care research in its long-standing instruments but new instruments focus exclusively on advanced stage research notably addressing infectious disease.

Private investment in the late stages of R&I especially from the pharmaceutical sector adds another dimension to how health needs act as a driver. EU research programmes have led in setting up public-private partnerships for accelerating R&I towards innovation in health through the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI). Such funding a mix of public (EU) and private (pharmaceutical) investment supports research addressing defined health problems through dedicated calls with jointly chosen topics. Now the new Innovative Health Initiatives (IHI) are extending this approach beyond the pharmaceutical industry to medical technologies.

In a funding environment where health needs are a driver for investment mechanisms that define and prioritise these needs are essential. So how do we select which areas to invest in? Relatively few studies have examined this process. Within the EU’s programmes the European Commission is responsible for strategic planning using consultations with the public and dedicated committees.

Health care needs as drivers for innovation was the topic of a conference under Belgium’s 2024 Presidency of the Council of the EU. The event included a panel discussion on the necessary research investment which opened with the presentation of a study commissioned by the Dutch government on the role of the pharmaceutical sector in the R&I ecosystem. The report illustrated some dramatic gaps between health needs as defined by burden of disease and pharmaceutical market introductions e.g. in the case of cardiovascular diseases. Such a gap has previously been reported in an analysis of scientific publication outputs in relation to burden of disease with scientific publications largely reflecting public funding. These data suggest that research policies that consider health needs should develop the necessary steering and evaluation mechanisms and examine the complete funding environment cross-sector and not only at EU level.

Indeed EU funding is essential in the larger portfolio of public funding for research in Europe because of its unique potential to support cross-border collaborative research creating international critical mass interdisciplinary expertise and cross-sector exchange. Nevertheless within the portfolio of public funding national agencies still represent the largest financial source accounting for some 90% of all funding. Bottom-up ideas and selection based on scientific excellence remain the pillars of national public funding. Yet there is also a trend at national level towards more targeted funding e.g. through specific calls or dedicated research centres alongside a growing expectation to demonstrate societal impact at all levels of research.

In conclusion while funding for bottom-up scientist-driven research may not (yet) be at risk policy makers should remain attentive and support the emergence and development of new ideas whether or not they present an immediate window for real-world translation or innovation. The importance of EU funding for cross-border collaborative research demands that EU policies pay attention to maintaining the entire R&I ecosystem as the only road to address societal challenges.