(Science|Business) EU research funding should do more to support scholars at risk, advocates say

For the original publication, please click here.

Greater flexibility and longer-term commitments are needed in EU research funding to better support scholars at risk, according to organisations advocating for researchers who are threatened in their home countries or fleeing persecution. This could include adapting application procedures for EU funding or extending schemes designed for specific nations like Ukraine to other areas of concern, such as Afghanistan.

For Frank Geary, director of the European office of international network Scholars at Risk, the first step is “clearer communication” for scientists in at-risk situations, making them aware of the opportunities available for taking part in European and national research programmes. The European Commission has done so for some conflict zones, such as Palestine, but not others. 

In the meantime, “the Commission may want to think about more sustained and flexible forms of engagement,” according to Matthias Johannsen, senior policy and strategy officer at the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities. “We are not necessarily thinking of entirely new instruments, but rather of building on approaches that already exist within the EU research landscape, and adapting them to contexts like Afghanistan.”

This could include the MSCA4Ukraine and Safe schemes, which offer fellowships to at-risk and displaced scientists through the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA). “These kinds of instruments could, in principle, be extended or made more accessible to Afghan researchers,” Johannsen added.

Afghanistan is an urgent case due to the continuing repression of the Taliban regime, and a tailing off in EU support for researchers in the country.

Geary, who confirmed the importance of broadening access to European fellowship programmes, particularly under the MSCA, thinks that this will require more flexibility in the application process, from eligibility to evaluation.

In addition to creating a category for researchers at risk to identify themselves as such in the application form, he recommended extending the MSCA’s flexible mobility rule to other schemes. This excludes the time that scientists spend obtaining refugee status from its 12-month residence limit. Meanwhile, introducing a second annual intake for the MSCA would reduce waiting times, and waiving the joint nature of applications would allow them to apply as individuals before approaching potential host institutions, he added.

Geary would also like to see the evaluation criteria for scientific proposals adjusted. “Greater openness in the evaluation process to non-linear career tracks would enhance the application prospects for researchers at risk,” he said. “Evaluators and selection committees should receive training on the situation of researchers at risk.”

Beyond expanding or replicating fellowship schemes, Johannsen proposed reinforcing partnerships with European host institutions and diaspora networks, “which can act as intermediaries where in-country participation is no longer feasible.” He also advised making greater use of flexible participation routes like mobility schemes, staff exchanges and co-funded mechanisms within existing programmes in order to reduce administrative and institutional barriers for scholars at risk.

Funding for Afghanistan

The situation in Afghanistan is particularly precarious, and a significant test case for how the EU treats scientific relationships with repressive regimes. The country is not associated to the EU Framework Programmes (FPs), but as a low-income country its researchers are automatically eligible for funding. 

Afghan researchers started contributing to EU research from FP6, which ran from 2003 to 2006, with the signing of four grants worth €805,130. This coincided with an increase in support from foreign donors following the overthrow of the Taliban 2001 and the arrival in 2004 of democratic structures under the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 

Participation declined in the subsequent Framework Programmes, however, with just one grant worth €16,719 under FP7, two grants worth €97,604 under Horizon 2020, and one grant so far worth €120,250 under Horizon Europe. 

This last project was awarded after the fall of the Islamic Republic in 2021 and the return of the fundamentalist Taliban to government. Called Gaps, it aimed to address discrepancies between EU migrant return policies and the interests of migrants themselves. The Kabul-based Bilim Organization for Research and Social Studies was among the 17 partners from Europe, Africa and Asia involved in the project, which ended in February.

The prospects for further collaboration with Afghan researchers do not look good. 

“The Taliban government has silenced opposition voices within Afghanistan’s universities and imposed ideological conformity by beating, detaining and firing professors with disfavoured political views or by purging faculty and staff on gender and/or ethnic grounds,” said Amy Kapit, senior programme officer on Scholars at Risk’s research and learning team.

“Unlike in some other conflict contexts, academic structures in the country have largely collapsed,” said Anna-Monika Lauter, head of its operative programmes at the Gerda Henkel Foundation. “Scholars in the diaspora are often unable to maintain institutional ties to their former universities and typically do not plan to return in the foreseeable future.”

And yet, the Commission thinks the door remains open. “The challenges related to Afghan participation in EU Framework Programmes are multifaceted, including the complex political and humanitarian situation in the country,” a spokesperson told Science|Business. “While the EU does not have a dedicated cooperation framework for Afghanistan akin to the Union for the Mediterranean regional research and innovation platform, we remain committed to supporting researchers where feasible.”

The Gerda Henkel Foundation has been offering fellowships to Afghan researchers and students in social sciences and humanities in Europe and the US since 2021. According to Lauter, it is important to see support for scholars at risk as a long-term commitment.

“Rebuilding personal lives, acquiring language skills, securing residence permits and integrating into new academic environments are all highly demanding processes,” she said. “Against this background, any efforts to strengthen participation would likely need to take a long-term perspective and address both scholars already based abroad and those still in the region.” 

Hence the importance of sustaining support for remote and online academic initiatives, she added.

“Internationalisation and inclusivity are not just desirable features of the European research landscape; they are core values,” Johannsen said. “Seen from that perspective, the key issue is not only the decline in participation, but how to keep Afghan researchers connected in conditions where normal participation has become extremely difficult.”