Ekaterina Zaharieva’s presentation to Members of the European Parliament was intended to steady a restive research community, but it crystallised fault lines over the future direction of Europe’s flagship research apparatus. At issue are two interlinked proposals within the Commission’s 2028–34 plans: closer alignment between Horizon Europe and a newly proposed competitiveness fund, and a policy shift to welcome projects with both civil and military potential.

MEPs and research stakeholders have demanded transparency about how the competing goals of open science and industrial competitiveness will be reconciled as the European Union prepares what many are calling FP10. Questions centre on governance: who will decide which projects qualify for crossover funding, what criteria will guide decisions, and how will accountability be enforced? Those concerns are acute because the move risks blurring administrative and ethical boundaries that have long separated basic research from defence procurement.

The opening of the programme to dual‑use work comes as defence budgets rise across Europe and elsewhere, creating economic incentives for deeper ties between research and military capability. For research institutions the implications are profound. Universities and public laboratories that have long operated under principles of openness, international collaboration and academic freedom now face potential pressure to prioritise applied, commercially oriented or security‑sensitive research. That could shift career incentives for scientists and redirect grant flows toward technologies with strategic value rather than broad societal benefit.

Internationally, the changes could complicate collaboration with partners in the United States, the Indo‑Pacific and the global South. Dual‑use projects carry export‑control and non‑proliferation implications; partner states and institutions may be wary of engaging in programmes where civilian and military ends are entangled. The risk is a retrenchment of the cross‑border research networks that have underpinned scientific progress and commercialisation in recent decades, particularly in fields such as artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and biotechnology.

Legal and ethical frameworks will be tested. EU institutions must harmonise any expanded dual‑use remit with existing international law obligations, including export controls and arms‑control norms, while preserving fundamental research freedoms. Without robust safeguards, there is a danger that the Commission’s competitiveness objectives could be pursued at the expense of transparency and democratic scrutiny.

MEPs and civil society groups have pressed for clear procedural protections: independent oversight, public reporting on fund allocation, explicit civilian‑benefit tests, and carve‑outs to protect basic research and collaborations with developing countries. How the Commission responds will shape not only EU research policy but also norms for how democracies balance innovation, security and openness.

The debate unfolding in Brussels is therefore more than a domestic bureaucratic dispute. It is a test of whether Europe can strengthen its industrial base and respond to strategic competition without undermining the international, collaborative and ethically anchored research ecosystem that has been central to its scientific success. The decisions taken in the coming months will reverberate across laboratories, boardrooms and diplomatic capitals worldwide.