We need to show more commitment

Do you have any concerns about this?

Like all EU Commission programs, the ERC expires at the end of each legislative period and has to be decided anew. There is currently no real concern for the continued existence of the ERC, but the question of whether it will remain in its current function is still up in the air. We see in other countries how quickly this can change, which is why we believe that the ERC should be given a permanent structure to maintain its success.

We’ve been seeing changes for some time now, with processes becoming more centralized and more specifications being made that limit the independence of the Research Council. This means we’ll need to negotiate harder than in the past. Although the ERC’s selection strategy isn’t being called into question, a strategy can only work if the Scientific Council is also responsible for the rules for its implementation.

You’re talking about the discussions surrounding the EU Commission’s new Competitiveness Fund, which has been subject to concerns about restructuring and more top-down funding. What would that mean in concrete terms?

It is not yet sure exactly what will happen, which is worrying. We must make it clear that the independence of the ERC and its work in service of science and researchers is part of the success of European competitiveness.

Assuming that the EU members approve the budget proposal, what changes and improvements would you like to make?

We have made a lot of progress in how funding is processed and administered over the past two years. We’re well positioned in this area. What has not happened for almost 20 years is an adjustment of funding amounts to inflation. That alone would swallow up half of the additional budget. And then there’s always the old problem of too many good applications that we don’t have the means to fund. This needs to change; the question is just how. 

We need to be open to new ideas, such as Draghi’s proposal to increase funding to institutions. We’re somewhat cautious about this, but funding programs like the ones in France, Denmark, or Germany that create “focal points of excellence” are certainly something to think about. But this requires extra money, which can’t come out of individual project funding. After all, it should have an impact on Europe.

In the USA, public budgets for research are being slashed, the autonomy of science is being undermined, and researchers are being labeled elitist. The European Union has now made money available to provide incentives for researchers to relocate. How realistic do you think it is that US top researchers will come to Europe?

In consultation with the Commission, we have developed ideas on how we can make Europe even more attractive in the competition for talent. This includes the ERC Plus funding round, which includes extra funds from the Commission as part of its “Choose Europe” initiative. The calls for funding of up to €7 million for up to seven years per project will go out in early 2026 and will be open to researchers at all career levels and from all disciplines. We all agree that Europe must be attractive for everyone who comes here and everyone who wants to stay here. It must also be said, however, that the ERC Plus grants make up only a small percentage of the overall funding program.

What changes are we likely to see in the international scientific community if top people in the USA lose their jobs?

The highest levels of the US scientific community have always featured good salaries and generous private investors. Researchers are only going to leave top laboratories with the best infrastructure behind if they know that it is available elsewhere or soon will be. However, countries and institutions have to do this themselves if they want to recruit researchers. Vienna is an excellent example of successful national and local research funding. There were already good researchers there when I was working on my doctorate (note: in biology), but now Vienna has become truly outstanding in my field, life sciences. I have also just been to the Baltic States, where politicians are massively throwing their weight behind modern basic research. We see that many ERC grants are now being acquired there. Even scientists who have emigrated from these regions are taking notice and considering returning.

Is there a will in Europe to set a new course and seize these opportunities?

In this context, we have to ask ourselves why it took this worrying situation in the USA to make us think about how Europe can be an attractive research location. Why didn’t we think about this much sooner? I would say because the will to fund excellence has been lacking and the necessary structures have not been established. We’ve got excellent group heads with ERC grants returning to Europe, but they don’t know what will happen when their grant expires.

According to a recent FWF survey of Austrian researchers, 82% of postdocs feel that their career prospects are too uncertain. How do you rate the conditions for researchers in Europe?

I’m aware of these criticisms and they are certainly justified. But if we want to be more competitive in Europe, we need to show much more commitment. What’s often forgotten when taking the USA as a role model for competitiveness are the working conditions there: 60-hour weeks, significantly less vacation time, and no security.