“We are defending a spectrum between basic and applied research”
As Europe redefines its research and innovation strategy with a view to enhancing its competitiveness, a new category of facilities has emerged in discussions surrounding the future framework programme (FP10, 2028-2034): technological infrastructure. Michel Guidal, the President of the CNRS’s Very Large-Scale Research Facilities Committee, provides an in-depth look at the issues.
The notion of technological infrastructure (TI) appears in the European Commission’s proposal for the 2028-2034 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP10). How does it differ from research infrastructure (RI)?
Michel Guidal : Research infrastructure (RI) denotes large, cutting-edge scientific facilities, which are often one of a kind and therefore costly, such as telescopes, particle accelerators, or large computing centres. Practically all scientific fields now need and have access to them, including large sociology and economics databases in the human and social sciences, and imaging and bioinformatics networks in the life sciences. They were above all designed to advance knowledge.
This infrastructure is used by the academic community the majority of the time, but remains open to industrial actors. Depending on the field, up to 30% of their activity involves industrial actors, for instance white room facilities in microelectronics.
Technological infrastructure (TI) such as that envisioned by the Commission has a different target: it is primarily oriented toward enterprises ranging from start-ups to major groups, with the goal of testing, validating, and guiding technology towards industrialisation via cutting-edge facilities and services that are open to them on a priority basis. These cases involve higher technology readiness levels. The economic model for such TI remains to be defined.
The European Union has included major ambitions in this future instrument, given that the commission’s proposal increases the RI and TI budget from 2.4 to 10 billion euros for the 2028-2034 period. What is the CNRS’s view of this proposal?
M.G. : The CNRS views it favourably. Infrastructure has substantial construction and operating costs that often require funding on the supranational level, in this case the European one1 . Such an increase is therefore quite welcome.
However, this change calls for vigilance. The distribution between RI and TI in this new — and sharply rising—infrastructure budget has not yet been defined. The development of TI should not proceed to the detriment of RI, which represents the foundation for scientific production. Without it, there simply cannot be innovation.
The CNRS is actively engaged in this landscape: it directs or co-directs 80% of research infrastructure included in the national roadmap, much of which is recognized on the European level via the ESFRI roadmap. Our involvement is also financial, as we manage over 200 million euros of RI budgets each year. This infrastructure provides structure for scientific excellence, and is an upstream driver for the entire innovation ecosystem.
It is therefore crucial that this budget increase does not translate into stagnation or even a decrease for the RI budget. Weakening this foundation would eventually erode Europe’s capacity to innovate.
- 1The costs for construction, maintenance, and operation are paid for by governments, generally via national organizations such as the CNRS. European subsidies primarily involve support initiatives, such as transnational access, partner networking, development, etc.
You defend the notion of a spectrum between basic and applied research. In what ways could RI and TI be connected within this context?
M.G. : There cannot be applied research without basic research. RI, which is sometimes behind major technological developments that benefit society every day, is a perfect illustration. For example CERN, the world’s biggest and most powerful particle accelerator, was behind the web and the Internet in the 1990s, and more recently, via R&D in the field of superconducting magnets, some of the world’s highest performance instruments for live cell imaging.
In general, much of our RI is already open to industrial users, and helps develop technology in order to bring it to market. This of course involves research that is quite upstream, but the interest from private actors for RI shows that it well and truly meets the needs of innovation. That is why it is crucial to avoid any rigid separation between the two categories. The goal is not to compartmentalize, but rather to build bridges, including with respect to funding methods.
In reality, the future framework programme’s central issue from a CNRS standpoint is to support basic research, and to place it in the service of society, especially with regard to innovation. It is on this condition that Europe can support its scientific excellence, with a view to remaining a technological power.