The Insider, Season 2, Episode 7

"The Legal Argument Brussels Doesn't Want to Hear"

Europe is redesigning its research and innovation architecture. FP10, the European Competitiveness Fund, defence research, dual use, competitiveness and security are all being pulled into the same conversation, and often treated as if the only question is how fast we can move.

But there is a more fundamental question underneath it all: Are we still operating within the limits of EU law?

In this episode of The Insider, host Ricardo Miguéis (INESC Brussels HUB) speaks with Prof. Kurt Deketelaere, one of Europe’s leading legal minds in research governance, about the issue almost no one in Brussels wants to confront: the legal validity of how defence research is being embedded into FP10 and the proposed European Competitiveness Fund (ECF).

FP10, the ECF, and a governance problem hiding in plain sight

Kurt explains why many universities and research organisations fear that, as currently drafted, FP10 risks becoming subordinate to the ECF. He discusses the joint statement issued by seven major university and research networks, and why they argue for two principles that must hold in the next cycle:

• Autonomy of FP10 and the ECF
• A clear interface that connects excellence to competitiveness (without merging them or placing one under the other)

The metaphor he uses is simple but powerful: FP10 as the generator of excellent science and talent; the ECF as the amplifier that scales it where Europe has a strategic interest.

The legal line: when a fund becomes a “specific programme”

Then the conversation goes where policy debates rarely go: into the treaty articles that determine who decides what.

Kurt lays out, in accessible terms, why he believes using the ECF regulation as the specific programme for FP10’s defence research might violate the EU’s “centre of gravity” principle; and why building a €125 billion line on shaky legal ground is a risk Europe cannot afford to ignore.

This is the “legal argument Brussels doesn’t want to hear”: not sensational, but deeply structural because it forces Parliament, Council and Commission to confront how far they are prepared to stretch the treaties in the name of speed and strategic autonomy.

Dual-use, safeguards, and Europe’s identity

The conversation also touches on one of the most difficult questions in today’s research landscape: the growing blur between civilian, dual-use and defence technologies. Kurt emphasises the importance of:

• Clear definitions
• Transparent flagging of dual-use calls
• Guarantees that researchers are not pushed toward militarised framing
• A firm separation between dual-use and deliberate defence research

What is EU-level R&I actually for?

The episode closes with the foundational question: what should EU-level research funding achieve?

Kurt brings it back to the treaties: Europe’s R&I mission is both to generate new knowledge and to strengthen its competitiveness. The challenge isn’t excellence (Europe has plenty). The challenge is turning excellence into impact, without sacrificing academic freedom, legal certainty, or the institutional safeguards built after the crises of the 20th century.

If you want to understand not just the proposals on the table, but what they mean for Europe’s long-term governance, legality and strategic direction, this episode offers a unique, unfiltered view from inside the debate.

Listen to Episode 7: “The Legal Argument Brussels Doesn’t Want to Hear” on The Insider.

The Insider, Season 2, Episode 6

“Partnerships in the Age of Strategic Autonomy”

Europe’s research and innovation system relies heavily on partnerships, but how well do we understand the machinery behind them? And what will it take for these partnerships to deliver the kind of strategic outcomes Europe now expects?

In this episode of The Insider, Ricardo Miguéis sits down with Niklas Blomberg, Executive Director of the Innovative Health Initiative (IHI) and former Director of ELIXIR, Europe’s life-science data infrastructure. Few people have been as deeply embedded in both the technical and governance dimensions of Europe’s collaborative ecosystem (from distributed research infrastructures to large-scale public–private partnerships shaping health innovation).

Niklas brings a unique vantage point: years spent building frameworks that connect research, industry, public agencies and civil-society actors at European scale. Where coordination is complex, where legitimacy matters, and where design choices quietly determine what Europe can (and cannot) deliver.

Part 1 - How European Partnerships Really Work

The episode opens by unpacking how partnerships such as IHI are structured, what “capabilities” mean in practice, and why Europe’s model differs from the US or China. Instead of pooling cash alone, European partnerships pool expertise (industrial R&D teams, advanced engineering capabilities, public-sector knowledge, patient organisations, research infrastructures and regulatory actors).

This allows Europe not just to do research differently, but in many cases to do different research. Thus, tackling problems that are too complex, too cross-sectoral or too high-risk for a single organisation or country to take on alone.

Niklas reflects on the transition from earlier partnership models to Horizon Europe, how governance shapes trust and risk-sharing, why “no losers” is a design principle (not a constraint), and how the human side of collaboration, not structures, often determines whether partnerships truly work.

Part 2 - Strategy, Governance and Europe’s Next Phase

The second half of the conversation shifts from mechanics to strategy, examining what effective governance looks like when partnerships must deliver faster, under pressure and at scale. It explores how FP10 and the European Competitiveness Fund could reshape Europe’s approach, and what kinds of agency design, metrics and feedback loops are needed to sustain trust, adaptability and long-term learning.

Here the episode goes deeper into questions of power, legitimacy, evaluation and institutional capacity; not as abstract concepts, but as practical choices that determine whether partnerships evolve or stagnate.

This episode makes one thing clear: Europe’s real R&I challenge lies not in innovation or governance alone, but in the space where the two meet. It shows how scientific capability, institutional design and on-the-ground delivery shape one another; and what Europe will need to strengthen across all three if its partnerships are to turn ambition into outcomes as FP10 takes shape.

Listen to Episode 6: “Partnerships in the Age of Strategic Autonomy” on The Insider.

The Insider, Season 2, Episode 5

“Building the R&I Agency of the Future”

Europe is not short on ideas. Over the past decades, it has built world-class universities, produced exceptional science, and developed some of the most advanced policy frameworks in the world.

Yet when it comes to turning knowledge into strategic technologies, industrial strength and long-term innovation capacity, the results remain uneven — especially when compared with countries in East Asia that have managed to preserve and strengthen their institutional foundations.

Why does this gap persist? And what would it take for Europe to rebuild the public-sector capacity that modern innovation systems require?

In this episode of The Insider, Ricardo Miguéis sits down with Rainer Kattel, Deputy Director and Professor of Innovation and Public Governance at the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP), to explore exactly that.

Over the past 20 years, Kattel has become one of the leading voices on how innovation bureaucracies work, why they fail, and what it means for states to act strategically. His award-winning book How to Make an Entrepreneurial State puts forward a simple but provocative idea: bureaucracy is not the enemy of innovation; it is one of its essential conditions.

The episode unfolds in two parts:

Part 1 – How Europe lost (and others kept) institutional capacity

The conversation begins with an honest look at Europe’s position: a continent that invests heavily in R&I but struggles with implementation. Ricardo and Rainer discuss how, from the 1990s onwards, many European countries gradually hollowed out their strategic capabilities, turning agencies into project managers focused on compliance rather than long-term direction.

Kattel contrasts this with the trajectories of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other East Asian economies, which built public organisations able to learn continuously, anticipate technological shifts, and act with coherence across decades.

The question they raised seems unavoidable: Can Europe still govern innovation in a world where second chances are disappearing?

Part 2 – What enables real change

The second half of the episode shifts from diagnosis to possibility. What would it take for European governments to actually strengthen their innovation capability, not on paper, but in day-to-day practice?

Rainer outlines the core ingredients: institutions that learn quickly, agencies that operate with a degree of protected autonomy, and political systems that allow experimentation without collapsing into short-termism. He argues that reform is less about redesigning entire ministries and more about creating the spaces (and the incentives) for public organisations to think strategically, coordinate across sectors, and retain the expertise they need.

The discussion also touches on talent, time horizons, and why the public sector’s ability to adapt often depends on the smallest units inside it: the teams empowered to test, adjust and build institutional memory before the next political cycle resets the conversation.

With geopolitical tensions rising and major technological shifts already underway, Europe is rethinking its R&I system for the decade ahead. This episode goes straight to the core question: Can Europe rebuild the institutional capacity it needs to stay competitive (and to govern innovation) in a world that won’t slow down?

A timely episode for a critical moment...

Listen to full episode “Building the R&I Agency of the Future”