Don’t Celebrate Before CZEDER: From Participation to Influence

Positive numbers are not enough. What does Czech science need to become a creator, not just a participant, in the European Research Area?

Seven strategic questions for the Czech Republic in European Framework Programmes

The following thematic points form an analytical discussion framework prepared ahead of the CZEDER 2025 conference. Their purpose is to support expert debate on the future position of the Czech Republic in the European Research Area and in the Horizon Europe programme.

These are not exhaustive or official conclusions, but potential discussion directions grounded in the author’s analytical work, publicly available data, and relevant strategic documents.

This text reflects the personal professional perspective of an analyst at the Technology Centre Prague. It does not represent an official position of the Technology Centre Prague.

1) Individual excellence exists — systemic strength does not (yet)

The Czech Republic produces excellent researchers and has strong results in ERC and MSCA. It ranks among the most successful new EU Member States in connecting to top European institutions. Yet this excellence remains isolated and only partially translates into institutional leadership, coordination, and strategic roles in framework programmes. We lack a mechanism to turn individual success into systemic performance — linking talent, funding, coordination, and institutional support. Without it, we will continue to have stars, but not a constellation moving the system forward.

Question:
How can individual excellence be connected with institutional and national strategy so that Czech teams systematically lead projects, partnerships, and agendas in European programmes?

2) Fragmented system: success sits on islands, not in a network

The Czech Republic has several strong research hubs (notably Prague, Brno, and Olomouc), but success does not diffuse across the system. Effective practices, talent, and consortia experience remain local. There is no national framework for shared capacities, mentoring, joint project offices, or systematic coordinator support. As a result, individuals and selected institutions grow — but the system does not.

Question:
Who should hold responsibility for coordinating the Czech Republic’s European research and innovation agenda — and how can capacities be consolidated with clearly defined roles?

3) The era of “EU funds will cover it” is ending or the Horizon -  first appropach

EU funds have been critical in building Czech research infrastructure and capabilities — but this era is coming to an end. After 2027, cohesion funding will decline substantially. Without timely replacement through national investment, private capital, and strategic governance, the result may be underfunded infrastructure and a slowdown in innovation capacity. The system’s DNA must evolve before funding dries up, not after.

Question:
How do we shift from a system dependent on external injections to a sustainable long-term national investment model?

4) From Lists of Priorities to Mission-Driven Strategy with a European Reach

The Czech Republic has defined national missions within its RIS3 strategy. Unlike some countries that have used missions as a tool to strengthen and elevate their international position in research and innovation (e.g., the Netherlands and Slovenia), Czech missions are not yet systematically connected to the European missions and partnerships of Horizon Europe. This creates a risk of national and European priorities running in parallel, without the strategic alignment needed to strengthen influence and positions in the European Research Area.

International examples show that missions work when resources, talent development, coordination support, and strategic partnerships with top institutions are concentrated around them. In the Czech context, however, missions have not yet become a trigger for such concentration or an “investment compass.” Without a direct link to funding, institutional development, and structured entry points into European initiatives, missions risk remaining a well-formulated list of priorities without international impact.

Question:
How can Czech missions move from being a strategic catalogue to becoming true investment and governance frameworks — and help the Czech Republic aim for leadership positions in selected European research and innovation agendas?

5) Regions: infrastructure is not the same as excellence

Regions received major investments, but without specialization, partnerships, and a role in ERA, their impact remains limited. Widening often serves as the final destination rather than a stepping stone to competitive pillars and coordination roles. Regional infrastructures need clear profiles, partnerships with leading institutions, and talent strategies — otherwise they risk under-utilization and decline. Regions should not represent “local science”, but rather specialized ERA actors.

Question:
How do we define regional roles in ERA and use Widening as a bridge to higher-performance tiers?

6) Talent will decide — but the system remains narrow

The Czech Republic attracts researchers, but predominantly from less established scientific environments. To attract and retain top-tier talent from leading research countries, we need transparent career paths, competitive start-up packages, predictable funding, and an environment that supports scientific leadership. Talent attraction cannot rely on chance — it must be strategic.

Question:
How do we build a Czech model for attracting, retaining, and developing top-tier researchers?

7) Participation is not enough — influence matters

Growing project numbers and funding volumes do not automatically translate into European relevance. Participation in consortia is not the same as shaping their direction. To move from participant to agenda-setter, the Czech Republic needs coordinated support for project leaders, strong institutions capable of leading large consortia, and performance metrics focused on influence — not only participation. 

Question:
How do we ensure that the Czech Republic’s success in framework programmes is measured not only by participation and funding, but also by its capacity to influence European research and innovation agendas?

Author: Daniel Frank, Technology Centre Prague,4.11.2025,  frank@tc.cz

Copyright & Use Notice
Reproduction or distribution of this text or its parts in any language is permitted only with proper citation of the source and author. Any substantive modifications require the author’s consent. The text has not undergone final language proofreading.