On 6 April we had first sight of the Government’s plans for its alternative to the EU’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme, should the current discussions with Brussels fail to reach agreement about the UK’s association (or participation) in it.
Previously known by the workaday label ‘Plan B’, the Government has gone for the altogether sexier title: ‘Pioneer’. Well, kind of sexy, but the word itself, together with the font and picture used on the front cover of the prospectus, brings to mind a trampoline park for preschoolers.
There’s so much to unpick here, but one thing that strikes you immediately is the clear reference to horizons in both the curve of the logo and the picture of the Earth. By doing so it reminds the consumer of the original, Horizon Europe (HEU), as Aldi does when it copies the big brands with its own products. Pioneer comes across as a Jive biscuit rather than a Twix.
That’s not a great starting point. If you’re starting afresh and offering a new and bold vision, you don’t want to be reminding people of what it’s not, however good the alternative product is. And I can certainly vouch for the quality of Aldi chocolate.
The basics
So what’s the programme itself like? I was pleasantly surprised by the framework. Briefly, it’s structured into four pillars (always the pillars, always the pillars):
- A: Talent (£2bn promised). This is essentially a replacement for the European Research Council, with elements of Marie Curie. The ERC was one of the great successes of H2020, as it offered responsive-mode, open funding and has developed a reputation for being the gold-standard of excellent research in Europe and beyond. So what’s the Pioneer alternative? Much the same, frankly: support for ‘talent across all researcher career stages,’ with a promise of less bureaucracy. However it does say it will offer ‘larger, longer and more flexible awards than Horizon equivalents’. This is a theme that is repeated throughout the prospectus: ours is larger and longer than yours. Well, what is there to say? Such is the world of superpower bragging.
- B) Innovation (£3.5bn promised). Moonshots, moonshots, moonshots. Have I mentioned moonshots? Yes, this is where the hi-viz-and-hard-hat photo opportunities lie. And Donelan/Freeman love it. ‘Moonshot’ is repeated 28 times throughout the prospectus. That’s, on average, once every 1.5 pages. That’s even more than ‘superpower’, which is repeated a mere 13 times. The Government means ‘innovation’ in both senses of the word: as both business-led collaborations and as radical and transformational projects. Details of how all this will be achieved are somewhat sketchy, though we know it will be in four broad areas: health innovations; green industrial growth; resilient UK; and transformative technologies. There’ll be a ‘pulse of funding,’ which will include sandpits, ‘challenge prizes and Eureka.’ Which, once again, has a faint ring of a trampoline park to it.
- C) Global collaboration (£3.8bn promised). We’ll get on to the overall purpose of Pioneer in a minute, but this is Pioneer’s Jive biscuit attempt to replicate three things: HEU’s aim of encouraging pan-European and international collaboration, a sop to the demise of ODA funding, and to administer an adrenaline injection to the somewhat bedraggled bodies of Britannia Unchained and Singapore on Thames.
- D) Infrastructure (£1.7bn promised). This feels like the most political of all the pillars. It promises infrastructure funding (with an interesting, small-but-huge caveat: ‘if needed’), but there’s a strong nod towards levelling up, so there’s a whiff of pork-barrel politics here.
What’s its purpose?
This may seem a straightforward question, and isn’t the answer obvious? It’s to have an ‘oven-ready’ alternative to HEU, should negotiations on association fail, right?
Well yes and no. I think there’s more going on.
- Strike a pose. Although it comes across as a straightforward alternative to association, it can also be read as a bullish statement of intent to help focus minds in Brussels. There’s an implied threat at certain points in the prospectus, such as here: ‘The UK must be ready to deploy funds via a new programme’. If it’s more than just an elaborate poker chip, what will happen if it implements it only to decide to apply to be part of HEU’s successor? Will Pioneer only exist for the four years between now and then? Will that be worth the effort? And if there is a new government in 2024, will plans for Pioneer continue?
- Give complements. Beyond this, it’s worth asking why the Government doesn’t just give more funding to UKRI/Aria. After all, most of it will be delivered through these existing structures. ‘Complement’ and ‘build on’ both come up 14 times each in the prospectus, and there’s also talk of ‘deepening’, ‘incorporating’, ‘expanding’ and being ‘delivered by’. The answer is, of course, political: by presenting it in a single bundle it helps show what the alternative is in its totality, and helps persuade sceptical minds in the research community that the Government does have a real and significant alternative.
Three questions
Despite these more clandestine intentions, I do think the overall framework is good, although it is somewhat undermined by three basic questions:
- Will the UK really be better off in Pioneer than HEU? It’s true, as Donelan suggests (p4), that ‘our receipts from Horizon would be uncertain as they depend on the performance of UK participants in competitive processes’, but her implication that, based on the figures for H2020, the UK would probably lose out is odd at best. If you look at H2020, the opposite was true. As Quirin Schiermeier noted in Nature, the UK ‘received 12.1% (more than €7 billion) of the Horizon 2020 funding; by comparison, the country’s average contribution to the overall EU budget is around 11.4% of the total.’ Even for someone whose maths is as woeful as mine, I can see that the funding received is larger than the funding contributed, and this had long been the case with the EU’s framework programmes. I’m sure that the Government knows this; by implying that the UK will miss out by being part of HEU suggests it has something to hide.
- Do the numbers add up? The prospectus says that ‘the UK [will] invest around £14.6 billion over seven years.’ However, the figures for the four pillars only add up to £11bn. If you factor in the money set aside for Third Country Participation (TCP) in HEU (£1.3bn) and the money already spent on the guarantee (another £1.3bn) and we’re still a billion short. But, once again, my maths might be awry.
- Will Pioneer be open to political interference? The Haldane Principle is enshrined in the legislation that created UKRI, the body that will be responsible for delivering a large part of Pioneer. It separates research funding decisions from party politics. There is a clear danger of Haldane being breached in Pioneer’s fourth pillar (Infrastructure): ‘This [funding] will contribute to our commitment, as part of the Levelling Up White Paper, to increasing public R&D investment outside the Greater South East by at least 40% by 2030.’ It’s a real worry: is the pillar (or Pioneer more broadly) being used for political ends, however well intentioned?
Overall I’m pleased and reassured by what the Government has set out. It’s good to at least have some certainty and sense of purpose, and Pioneer offers a positive and exciting opportunity for researchers to collaborate both in the UK and globally. However, I am worried that it will become a political vehicle, used to support and encourage research to particular ends rather than for pan-national good. The EU’s framework programmes may have many shortcomings, and are certainly not free of politics, but they have significant proven benefits, offering a common platform for European and global R&I. To step off this platform and to rely on the vagaries of national government agendas will take a significant leap of faith for uncertain and questionable additional benefits. Remind you of anything?
(A version of this was first published on Research Professional and is reproduced with kind permission).