The paper is the product of INPACT!, a network launched in 2023 that brings together more than 120 scientist-innovators from over 20 countries across the European research area, many of them grantees of the European Research Council. The initiative combines the direct experience of researchers who have attempted to commercialise their discoveries with economic analysis of European funding programmes. Among the co-authors are Associate Professor Mehmet Cengiz Onbaşlı of Koç University’s College of Engineering and Professor Erdem Yörük of Koç University’s College of Social Sciences and Humanities, alongside leading researchers from institutions across Europe, including Dario Polli, Professor at Politecnico di Milano, and Amanda Silva Brun, Director of Research at the CNRS, who serve as lead authors.

At the centre of the analysis sits Horizon Europe, the European Union’s flagship research and innovation programme covering the period from 2021 to 2027. The authors argue that although the programme channels enormous resources into excellent science, its funding architecture remains fragmented in ways that penalise researchers attempting to move from laboratory discovery to market application. In particular, they identify an administrative gap between European Research Council Proof of Concept grants, which help researchers explore the practical potential of their fundamental discoveries, and European Innovation Council programmes, which support technology development and business growth. Ideas that successfully navigate one programme can stall at the boundary of the next, losing momentum precisely when commercial promise is greatest.

The Policy Forum’s headline proposal is to bring the ERC Proof of Concept grants under the governance of the European Innovation Council, creating a single, continuous pathway from scientific discovery through technology development to commercialisation. According to the authors, such a restructuring would reduce repeated evaluation cycles, simplify transitions between funding instruments and make support more predictable for both researchers and the investors who back them. Predictability, they contend, is a decisive factor in whether promising ideas attract the sustained capital and institutional patience required to mature into viable ventures.

The urgency of the reform case is underlined by the authors’ observation about where the value of European science is ultimately captured. ERC-funded research, they note, is disproportionately cited in patents filed by United States start-ups rather than European ones, meaning that too much of the latent economic value generated by European public investment is realised elsewhere. Onbaşlı argues that the commercialisation pipeline needed to build many more European unicorns must be paved with complementary incentive mechanisms, so that discoveries made with European funding generate European companies, jobs and societal benefits rather than enriching innovation ecosystems abroad.

Beyond structural reorganisation, the Policy Forum calls for substantially stronger support for early-stage, high-risk innovation. Combined annual funding for the EIC Pathfinder and Transition programmes currently stands at approximately 500 million euros, a figure the authors describe as modest, while their programme-management capacity remains limited compared with advanced research agencies in the United States. The authors recommend reallocating resources towards breakthrough innovation and empowering independent programme managers with greater authority to guide promising projects through their most uncertain phases. This model of empowered programme management, they suggest, draws on the practices of agencies that have demonstrated an ability to nurture transformative technologies by backing exceptional people and ideas over long horizons.

The paper also targets the bureaucratic burden of European funding applications themselves. The authors argue that proposals should be shorter and assessed more directly on the substance of the idea and its potential use, rather than on exhaustive administrative detail that consumes researcher time without improving selection quality. In parallel, they propose that national funding agencies make multi-year commitments to support excellent projects that successfully pass European evaluation but cannot be financed from the available EU budget. This approach would extend the model already established through the Seal of Excellence, a quality label that allows national and regional programmes to co-fund projects judged excellent at European level but left unfunded due to budget constraints.

Yörük frames the underlying problem in stark terms: the challenge is not a lack of excellent science but the weakness of the mechanisms that translate scientific research into economic and societal value. Addressing this, he argues, requires a more continuous pathway from research to proof of concept, entrepreneurship and scale-up, together with academic incentives and institutional structures that support each stage of that journey. The diagnosis shifts responsibility away from individual researchers and towards the systems in which they operate, a framing that has resonated widely among European scientists who have watched colleagues abandon commercialisation efforts or relocate to environments with better innovation support.

Crucially, the authors insist that reforming European funding alone will not be enough. Universities and technology transfer offices must also create conditions in which researchers can pursue innovation without being forced to choose between an academic career and entrepreneurship. The Policy Forum recommends greater recognition of entrepreneurship within academic career structures, improved intellectual-property management, clearer routes to patents, industrial partnerships and spin-offs, and better access to mentoring and entrepreneurial expertise. In many European institutions, entrepreneurial activity remains undervalued in hiring, promotion and tenure decisions, sending a signal that commercial engagement is peripheral to academic life. The authors argue that reversing this signal is essential if Europe is to retain its most commercially minded talent.

Silva Brun emphasises that institutions would benefit from a clearer pathway for translating discoveries into market-ready technologies, with well-defined steps, predictable timelines and streamlined procedures. Making the entire process easier to navigate, she argues, could empower more researchers to transform knowledge into solutions for society, give new momentum to academic careers and enable scientists to play a strategic role in strengthening Europe’s global competitiveness while addressing unmet societal needs. The authors are careful to note that their proposed reforms would not by themselves resolve Europe’s wider constraints in venture capital availability, regulation and business expansion. Nevertheless, they conclude that a more coherent system linking scientific research, technology development and entrepreneurship could help Europe capture far more of the economic and societal value generated by its exceptional research base, turning scientific excellence into a durable engine of European competitiveness. The Policy Forum underwent external peer review and revision before its acceptance and publication in Science on 24 September 2026.

Subject of Research: EU research and innovation policy reform to strengthen the pathway from scientific discovery to commercialisation

Article Title: European researchers set out EU innovation reforms in Science

Article References: European researchers set out EU innovation reforms in Science. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: Horizon Europe, European Research Council, European Innovation Council, INPACT!, research commercialisation, science policy, innovation funding, technology transfer, academic entrepreneurship, Proof of Concept grants, Europe competitiveness, Science Policy Forum