In a Science|Business viewpoint published on 8 April, Louise Drogoul argues that introducing an “EU preference” into the next European framework programme for research and innovation (FP10) would undermine Europe’s long-standing strengths in openness, excellence and international collaboration.
While concerns around research security are legitimate and require robust, proportionate responses, the viewpoint highlights the risk of overcorrection. Applying industrial policy logic designed for deployment contexts to collaborative research in advanced science and technology would slow progress, reduce attractiveness to global talent, and ultimately weaken Europe’s strategic position.
For universities of science and technology, the balance between openness and security is already a daily operational reality. Effective research security is not about closing systems, but about managing risks through governance, trust and targeted safeguards. The viewpoint emphasises that the greater strategic risk lies not only in collaboration, but in non-collaboration: limiting access to global knowledge, talent and infrastructures risks isolating Europe at precisely the moment it seeks to lead in critical technologies.
The viewpoint also underlines the importance of differentiated, evidence-based approaches. Rather than broad restrictions based on nationality, assessments should focus on specific risk profiles of partners, institutions and projects. In particular, limiting collaboration with closely integrated partners such as the UK, Switzerland and Norway would be difficult to justify strategically.
The central message is clear: FP10 should remain open by default, with restrictions applied only where clearly warranted. Openness, excellence and responsible international collaboration are not in tension with Europe’s security, they are fundamental to it.
We use both our own cookies and those of carefully selected partners we collaborate with.
Check out our detailed Cookie policy » and our Privacy policy » .