Research & innovation

The European Commission proposes to have industry co-decide how €9.6 billion of EU public research money should be used. The Member States now have to decide if they accept expanding the highly problematic model of EU Joint Undertakings, very large industry-driven public-private research partnerships, in the EU’s new research funding programme Horizon Europe.

EU Watchdog Radio is a new podcast hosted jointly by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and Counter Balance. In the sixth episode Martin Pigeon, researcher and campaigner at CEO and Marine Ejuryan, EU Advocacy manager at ‘Global Health Advocates’ (GHA) explain the content of two in-depth and damning reports they just published; These reports are about how, in the name of innovation, industrial lobbies have managed to control the use of at least 3.6 billion of euro in European public research funds.

EU research funds for helping people living with HIV in Africa so far appear to have only helped Sanofi’s profits.

A detailed summary of the findings and conclusions of two extensive reports on research public-private partnerships in the EU: the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) and the Bio-Based Industries (BBI) Joint Undertakings.

BBI is a public-private partnership between lobby groups representing the agribusiness, forestry, biotechnology, chemical, and fossil fuel industries on the one hand, and the European Commission’s DG Research & Innovation, ostensibly to help build a “sustainable low-carbon economy”.

This report asks whether the IMI’s health research truly delivers tangible benefits for citizens, such as better access to health innovations, or whether it is rather focused on enhancing the competitiveness of the largest pharmaceutical corporations.

A seemingly innocent concept, the “innovation principle” has been invented by some of the dirtiest industries in Europe. They have carefully and strategically inserted it into the EU system, where it could have a significant impact on the shaping of new EU legislation or policies, and those under revision.

Comments on the European Commission's new Scientific Advice Mechanism by Corporate Europe Observatory and the Fondation Sciences Citoyennes

After many months of suspense, the European Commission annouced today that it was going to create a new "High Level Advisory Group of Eminent scientists" to replace the now defunct Chief Scientific Advisor to the President of the European Commission. Little is known yet about the proposal, but here are some comments.

The position of Chief Scientific Adviser to the President of the European Commission has been discontinued, and the Juncker Commission says it is now reflecting on how to organise independent scientific advice. This is a crucial issue and, together with many other NGOs, we sent a list of principles to the Commission on how to, in our opinion, try to best do this.

A few observations on the debate sparked by our open letter on the position of Chief Scientific Advisor to the President of the European Commission, and on the need for proper scientific advice to EU legislators.

The position of Chief Scientific Adviser to the President of the European Commission is problematic, concentrating too much influence in one person and undermining other Commission research and assessment processes. We ask Mr Juncker, the new President of the European Commission, to scrap the position.