Alternative futures for European science

The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) think tank has published a horizon-scanning report outlining four sharply contrasting future directions for the Europe science and research landscape.

The report, Science in 2050: Alternative futures and lessons for today, goes on to make policy recommendations to inform current debates in Europe over the shape of Framework Programme 10 and the EU’s multi-year budget plans.

The differing futures which the think tank sketches out are based on discussions at a workshop held over the summer with European policy experts, informed in turn by the EU Joint Research Centre’s identification of 14 megatrends as well as AI-supported document scanning. In particular, the rapid development of AI, quantum, engineering biology and other frontier technologies are presented as transformational though difficult to predict:

“Their trajectories towards 2050 remain uncertain: access may expand globally or concentrate further; governance could remain national or become multilateral; and their power could be used for public good or be exploited by private interests.”

The think tank organises its ideas against two axes: the first concerning whether research is governed and funded by the public or private sector, the second related to how centralised the system is.

The thought experiment thus arrives at four “markedly different worlds”:

• the grand project state, where research is coordinated EU-wide, and shaped by geopolitical competition with other blocs. CERN-style institutions would be the dominant model
• platform science: a research system dominated by private companies (AI labs would be “de facto research institutions”) within which IP is the highest priority, and results are published strategically rather than openly
• the commons network, a world of distributed public funding, with open and participatory research systems and many different research institutions employing shared protocols
• the frontier archipelago: a world of decentralised funding dominated by venture capital and diverse institutions, with “patchy quality control” despite a high rate of innovation.

The report explores each potential future in depth, but also presents near-term policy recommendations. Whether Europe reaches 2050 “as a rule-taker in someone else’s scientific system or as the architect of a trusted one” will be decided in the current multiannual financial framework negotiations and the structure of the next Horizon Europe, the think tank argues.

Foremost among the recommendations is for Europe to not place all its bets on competitiveness and security, themes which have been prominent in EU policymaking over the last few years. CEPS stresses that, while strategic priorities matter, Europe needs to continue to strengthen its scientific base, especially in the event of a future landscape where private platforms could increasingly set the agenda.

The think tank also aligns with calls for Europe to push harder towards investing three per cent of GDP into public R&I spending:

“A public R&I spending target would signal long-term commitment and triggers predictability. It would also ensure Europe can pursue its own priorities in futures where private actors would not.”

The report’s overarching message is for Europe to “back talent” in its ongoing negotiations, investing in research careers and working conditions. Beyond the current budget and framework programme, CEPS also emphasises the importance of the planned European Research Area Act, which it describes as necessary for a future system in which research is governed and supported by public, rather than private, actors.