Category: 3. Business

HOUSTON, Oct. 9, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — Absolute greenhouse gas emissions from the Permian basin—one of the most prolific oil and gas fields in the world, responsible for 40% of total production in the United States—declined every year since 2022, even as production of oil and gas increased, according to a new analysis by S&P Global Commodity Insights.

Absolute greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the Permian declined by 25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMt CO2e) during the years 2022-2024, a 20% reduction during a period when oil and gas production increased by the equivalent of 500,000 barrels per day.

Although the GHG intensity of oil and gas activity—the ratio of emissions per barrel produced—in the basin has consistently declined over the past several years, the reduction in absolute emissions during a period of production growth was a surprise, the analysis says.

“This is a whole new ballgame,” said Kevin Birn, Head of the Center for Emissions Excellence, S&P Global Commodity Insights. “Major Permian producers have a long track record of improvements from an emissions per barrel standpoint, but at the end of the day more barrels produced typically means more emissions. However, over the past few years in the Permian, more barrels came with lower emissions. It’s a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too moment.”

The biggest factor in the overall emissions reduction has been the improved detection and mitigation of methane, the analysis says. A more potent greenhouse gas, methane emissions account for approximately two-thirds of total emissions in the Permian.

Improved operations, better equipment and the utilization of artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies reduced the methane intensity of Permian production by more than 50% during the 2022-2024 period, according to a previous S&P Global Commodity Insights analysis for Permian upstream methane. The scale of methane reduction outpaced the impact of production growth leading to absolute emissions declining.

“The introduction of higher quality observational data in recent years not only establishes a more credible baseline against which to measure emissions mitigation, it enables technologies and practices that allow producers to improve those efforts, or to even anticipate and prevent emissions altogether,” said Raoul LeBlanc, Vice President, Global Upstream, S&P Global Commodity Insights. “Data show methane emissions management is being increasingly normalized as part of field operations and that is driving methane down.”

The new analysis—which includes methane and carbon dioxide emissions to provide a more complete assessment of the GHG emissions for the Permian—finds that the basin produced nearly 11 million barrels of oil at an average GHG intensity of 22 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per barrel of oil equivalent produced (equivalent to 3.8gCO2e/MJ) in 2024.

However, intensity varied widely from one well to another, ranging from more than 160 kgCO2e/boe (28 gCO2e/MJ) to less than 4 kgCO2e/boe (0.69 gCO2e/MJ), reflecting the dynamic nature of production in the basin.

“The variation of intensity from one well to the next underscores the myriad factors that can impact the GHG intensity of any one asset and that an overreliance on basin-wide averages can be extremely limiting,” said Shane Whipple, Emissions Insight Analyst, Center of Emissions Excellence. “Utilizing S&P Global Commodity Insights’ unique capabilities, we are able to provide a level of granularity to truly understand the nature of upstream oil and gas emissions for each individual asset.”

About the analysis

The S&P Global Commodity Insight’s estimate of Permian emissions includes carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane emissions of upstream oil and gas operations. Coverage includes all drilling and completions (including natural gas and diesel combustion), operations, electricity imports and flaring and fugitives across the three main Permian plays: Wolfcamp Midland, Wolfcamp Delaware and Bone Springs. Midstream transportation emissions are not included.

Upstream emissions estimates make use of a complex, purpose-built bottom-up model built atop of S&P Global Commodity Insights extensive upstream database and coverage of all active wells in the Permian on a monthly basis over the entire time period presented in this study. This model is independent of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reporting although is regularly compared against it and other public sources.

Beginning in 2022, S&P Global Commodity Insights estimates made use of methane observation data from Insight M. These data greatly increased both the volume of methane emissions and the reliability of those estimates. Estimates prior to 2022 used sophisticated calculations and factors to estimate venting and fugitive methane emissions but were notably lower quality. More information on the methane observation data used from Insight M is available here: https://view.highspot.com/viewer/651121fb7c2bcb2c1c1b9fb0f6868d3f#1  

Coverage of upstream activity is comprehensive. In 2024, coverage included all 160,000 active wells and 12,000 new wells in the Wolfcamp Midland, Wolfcamp Delaware and Bone Springs—100% of producing wells. Methane observations from Insight M for the same period included 81.8% of the 160,000 active Permian wells, (78.5% of conventional wells and 88.6% of unconventional wells). These assets supplied 90.0% of the 3.9 billion boe produced in 2024.

Insight M overflights observation data provides a level of resolution that is up to 5 times greater than that of satellites, providing reliable attribution not only by facility, but in most cases to specific assets or pieces of equipment.

Threshold for detection isn’t a factor for methane estimates prior to 2022 due to the methodology model estimates. Insight M methane observations since 2022, are as low as the range of 50-10 kg/hr depending on the specific overflight. These observed volumes account for more than 68% of total methane released to the atmosphere from upstream oil and gas operations. The volumes from all sources below this threshold were estimated using the Rutherford model developed by Stanford University and included in the totals used in the analysis. More information on the methodology employed by Insight M can be found here: https://view.highspot.com/viewer/992ecc322aa7c4d80d5f6b15a4a0f2c4#1 

Global Warming Potential Factor:

S&P Global Commodity Insights conversion of methane to CO2 equivalency are based on a Global Warming Potential (GWP) factor for 100 years of 28 tons of CO2 per ton of methane. Using the 20-year factor of 86 would thus increase both the emissions reduction and the continuing emissions to 3.07 times the figures cited in this report.

Media Contacts:

Jeff Marn +1-202-463-8213, Jeff.marn@spglobal.com 

Americas: Kathleen Tanzy + 1 917-331-4607, kathleen.tanzy@spglobal.com
Asia: Melissa Tan + 65-6597-6241, melissa.tan@spglobal.com

About S&P Global Commodity Insights
At S&P Global Commodity Insights, our complete view of global energy and commodity markets enables our customers to make decisions with conviction and create long-term, sustainable value. 

We’re a trusted connector that brings together thought leaders, market participants, governments, and regulators and we create solutions that lead to progress. Vital to navigating commodity markets, our coverage includes oil and gas, power, chemicals, metals, agriculture, shipping and energy transition. Platts^® products and services, including leading benchmark price assessments in the physical commodity markets, are offered through S&P Global Commodity Insights. S&P Global Commodity Insights maintains clear structural and operational separation between its price assessment activities and the other activities carried out by S&P Global Commodity Insights and the other business divisions of S&P Global. 

S&P Global Commodity Insights is a division of S&P Global (NYSE: SPGI). S&P Global is the world’s foremost provider of credit ratings, benchmarks, analytics and workflow solutions in the global capital, commodity and automotive markets. With every one of our offerings, we help many of the world’s leading organizations navigate the economic landscape so they can plan for tomorrow, today. For more information visit https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights.

SOURCE S&P Global Commodity Insights

October 9, 2025 7:00 am EDT

RAHWAY, N.J.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–
Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside of the United States and Canada, announced today that it will present new findings from its HIV treatment and prevention pipeline at the 20th European AIDS Conference (EACS 2025) taking place Oct.15-18, 2025, in Paris, France. The company’s presentations will include:

• An oral presentation of weight and body composition at Week 48 from the Phase 3 trial ( MK-8591A-052) comparing doravirine/islatravir [DOR/ISL (100mg/0.25mg)] vs. bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide ⁱ[BIC/FTC/TAF (50mg/200mg/25mg)] for the once-daily treatment of adults with virologically suppressed HIV-1 infection on antiretroviral therapy
• A poster presentation of fasting lipids and insulin resistance at Week 48 from two Phase 3 trials comparing DOR/ISL vs. baseline antiretroviral therapy ( MK-8591A-051) or BIC/FTC/TAF ( MK-8591A-052), for the once-daily treatment of adults with virologically suppressed HIV-1 infection on antiretroviral therapy
• An oral presentation of 96 weeks of safety and pharmacokinetics data from the Phase 2 trial ( NCT05052996) of the investigational once-weekly oral combination of islatravir in combination with lenacapavir (MK-8591D) for adults with virologically suppressed HIV-1 infection on BIC/FTC/TAF
• A poster presentation of MK-8527 Phase 1 safety and pharmacokinetics data in adults with moderate or severe renal impairment ( MK-8527-008); MK-8527 is Merck’s investigational once-monthly pill for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)

“We are pleased to share new data from across our HIV pipeline at EACS 2025, including additional analyses from the Phase 3 program of the investigational once-daily, two-drug treatment regimen, DOR/ISL, which is currently under review with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” said Dr. Luisa Stamm, associate vice president and HIV section head at Merck Research Laboratories. “By advancing multiple investigational agents for daily and weekly treatments and monthly oral prevention, we aim to give individuals new and different ways to treat and prevent HIV.”

Select abstracts in the EACS 2025 program include:

Abstract Title and Author	Date and Time
HIV TREATMENT
Weight and Body Composition After Switch to Doravirine/Islatravir (100mg/0.25mg) Once Daily from BIC/FTC/TAF in Adults Living With HIV-1: Week 48 Results from a Randomized, Double-Blind Phase 3 Study. Orkin, C, et al.	Oral Presentation​ Thursday, October 16, 2025,​ 11:00 – 12:00
Evaluation of Fasting Lipids and Insulin Resistance After Switch to Doravirine/Islatravir (100mg/0.25mg) Once Daily: Week 48 Results From Two Randomized Phase 3 Studies in Adults Living With HIV‑1. Calmy, A, et al.	Moderated ePoster​ Friday, October 17, 2025,​ 15:35 – 16:10
Oral Weekly Islatravir Plus Lenacapavir in Virologically Suppressed People with HIV-1: 96 Week Outcomes from a Phase 2 Study. Colson, A, et al.	Oral Presentation Saturday, October 18, 2025 09:15 – 10:15
Patient-Reported Outcomes From People With HIV-1 Receiving Once-Weekly Oral Islatravir in Combination With Lenacapavir: Phase 2 Week 48 Results. Eron, J, et al.	ePoster
HIV PREVENTION
Pharmacokinetics and Safety of MK-8527 in Adults With Moderate or Severe Renal Impairment, Carstens, R, et al.	ePoster

This year at EACS, Merck will host a policy symposium “Ending the Epidemic in Europe: Policy Challenges and Opportunities” on Thursday, October 16, from 18:00 – 19:30 CEST. Merck will also host a medical symposium “Optimization of HIV Care” on Friday, Oct. 17, from 12:30 – 14:00 CEST. Both events will be open to all registered attendees.

For more details about Merck’s clinical development program in HIV treatment and prevention, click here.

Merck’s Commitment to HIV

For more than 35 years, Merck has been committed to scientific research and discovery in HIV leading to scientific breakthroughs that have helped change HIV treatment. Our work has helped pioneer the development of new options across multiple drug classes to help those impacted by HIV. Today, we are developing a series of antiviral options designed to help people manage their HIV and to help prevent HIV, with the goal of reducing the growing burden of infection worldwide. We want to ensure people are not defined by HIV, and our work focuses on transformational innovations, collaborations with others in the global HIV community, and access initiatives aimed at helping to end the HIV epidemic for everyone.

Indications and usage for PIFELTRO^® (doravirine) and DELSTRIGO^® (doravirine, lamivudine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) in the U.S.

PIFELTRO is indicated in combination with other antiretroviral (ARV) agents for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adult patients with no prior ARV treatment history or to replace the current ARV regimen in those who are virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL) on a stable ARV regimen with no history of treatment failure and no known substitutions associated with resistance to doravirine.

DELSTRIGO is indicated as a complete regimen for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adult patients with no prior ARV treatment history or to replace the current ARV regimen in those who are virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL) on a stable ARV regimen with no history of treatment failure and no known substitutions associated with resistance to the individual components of DELSTRIGO.

Selected Safety Information

Warning: Posttreatment Acute Exacerbation of Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) for DELSTRIGO

All patients with HIV-1 should be tested for the presence of HBV before initiating ARV therapy. Severe acute exacerbations of HBV have been reported in people with concomitant HIV-1 and HBV who have discontinued products containing lamivudine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), which are components of DELSTRIGO. Patients coinfected with HIV-1 and HBV who discontinue DELSTRIGO should be monitored with both clinical and laboratory follow-up for at least several months after stopping DELSTRIGO. If appropriate, initiation of anti-HBV therapy may be warranted.

Contraindications

PIFELTRO and DELSTRIGO are contraindicated when coadministered with drugs that are strong cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A enzyme inducers (including the anticonvulsants carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin; the androgen receptor inhibitor enzalutamide; the antimycobacterials rifampin and rifapentine; the cytotoxic agent mitotane; and the herbal product St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum)), as significant decreases in doravirine plasma concentrations may occur, which may decrease the effectiveness of DELSTRIGO and PIFELTRO.

DELSTRIGO is contraindicated in patients with a previous hypersensitivity reaction to lamivudine.

Warnings and Precautions

Severe Skin Reactions

Severe skin reactions, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS)/toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), have been reported during the postmarketing experience with doravirine-containing regimens. Discontinue PIFELTRO or DELSTRIGO, and other medications known to be associated with severe skin reactions, immediately if a painful rash with mucosal involvement or a progressive severe rash develops. Clinical status should be closely monitored, and appropriate therapy should be initiated.

New or Worsening Renal Impairment

Renal impairment, including cases of acute renal failure and Fanconi syndrome, have been reported with the use of TDF. DELSTRIGO should be avoided with concurrent or recent use of a nephrotoxic agent (e.g., high-dose or multiple NSAIDs). Cases of acute renal failure after initiation of high-dose or multiple NSAIDs have been reported in people living with HIV with risk factors for renal dysfunction who appeared stable on TDF.

Prior to or when initiating DELSTRIGO, and during treatment, assess serum creatinine, estimated creatinine clearance, urine glucose, and urine protein in all patients. In patients with chronic kidney disease, also assess serum phosphorus. Discontinue DELSTRIGO in patients who develop clinically significant decreases in renal function or evidence of Fanconi syndrome. Discontinue DELSTRIGO if estimated creatinine clearance declines below 50 mL/min.

Bone Loss and Mineralization Defects

In clinical trials in adults living with HIV, TDF was associated with slightly greater decreases in bone mineral density (BMD) and increases in biochemical markers of bone metabolism. Serum parathyroid hormone levels and 1,25 Vitamin D levels were also higher. Cases of osteomalacia associated with proximal renal tubulopathy have been reported with the use of TDF. The effects of TDF-associated changes in BMD and biochemical markers on long-term bone health and future fracture risk in adults are unknown.

Immune Reconstitution Syndrome

Immune reconstitution syndrome can occur, including the occurrence of autoimmune disorders with variable time to onset, which may necessitate further evaluation and treatment.

Drug Interactions

Because DELSTRIGO is a complete regimen, coadministration with other antiretroviral medications for the treatment of HIV-1 infection is not recommended.

Coadministration of PIFELTRO with efavirenz, etravirine, or nevirapine is not recommended.

If DELSTRIGO is coadministered with rifabutin, take one tablet of DELSTRIGO once daily, followed by one tablet of doravirine (PIFELTRO) approximately 12 hours after the dose of DELSTRIGO.

If PIFELTRO is coadministered with rifabutin, increase PIFELTRO dosage to one tablet twice daily (approximately 12 hours apart).

Consult the full Prescribing Information prior to and during treatment for more information on potential drug-drug interactions.

Dosage and Administration/Specific Populations

Renal Impairment

Because DELSTRIGO is a fixed-dose combination tablet and the dosage of lamivudine and TDF cannot be adjusted, DELSTRIGO is not recommended in patients with estimated creatinine clearance less than 50 mL/min.

Adverse Reactions

The most common adverse reactions with DELSTRIGO (incidence ≥5%, all intensities) were dizziness (7%), nausea (5%), and abnormal dreams (5%). The most common adverse reactions with PIFELTRO (incidence ≥5%, all intensities) were nausea (7%), dizziness (7%), headache (6%), fatigue (6%), diarrhea (6%), abdominal pain (5%), and abnormal dreams (5%).

By week 96 in DRIVE-FORWARD, 2% of adult participants in the PIFELTRO group and 3% in the darunavir+ritonavir (DRV+r) group had adverse events leading to discontinuation of study medication.

By week 96 in DRIVE-AHEAD, 3% of adult participants in the DELSTRIGO group and 7% in the efavirenz (EFV)/emtricitabine (FTC)/TDF group had adverse events leading to discontinuation of study medication.

In DRIVE-FORWARD, mean changes from baseline at week 48 in LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) and non-HDL-cholesterol (non-HDL-C) were pre-specified. LDL-C: -4.6 mg/dL in the PIFELTRO group vs 9.5 mg/dL in the DRV+r group. Non-HDL-C: -5.4 mg/dL in the PIFELTRO group vs 13.7 mg/dL in the DRV+r group. The clinical benefits of these findings have not been demonstrated.

In DRIVE-AHEAD, mean changes from baseline at week 48 in LDL-C and non-HDL-C were pre-specified. LDL-C: -2.1 mg/dL in the DELSTRIGO group vs 8.3 mg/dL in the EFV/FTC/TDF group. Non-HDL-C: -4.1 mg/dL in the DELSTRIGO group vs 12.7 mg/dL in the EFV/FTC/TDF group. The clinical benefits of these findings have not been demonstrated.

In DRIVE-SHIFT, mean changes from baseline at week 24 in LDL-C and non-HDL-C were pre-specified. LDL-C: -16.3 mg/dL in the DELSTRIGO group vs -2.6 mg/dL in the PI + ritonavir group. Non-HDL-C: -24.8 mg/dL in the DELSTRIGO group vs -2.1 mg/dL in the PI + ritonavir group. The clinical benefits of these findings have not been demonstrated.

In DRIVE-AHEAD, neuropsychiatric adverse events were reported in the three pre-specified categories of sleep disorders and disturbances, dizziness, and altered sensorium. Twelve percent of adult participants in the DELSTRIGO group and 26% in the EFV/FTC/TDF group reported neuropsychiatric adverse events of sleep disorders and disturbances; 9% in the DELSTRIGO group and 37% in the EFV/FTC/TDF group reported dizziness; and 4% in the DELSTRIGO group and 8% in the EFV/FTC/TDF group reported altered sensorium.

The safety of DELSTRIGO in virologically-suppressed adults was based on week 48 data from participants in the DRIVE-SHIFT trial. Overall, the safety profile in virologically-suppressed adult participants was similar to that in participants with no ARV treatment history.

Serum ALT and AST Elevations: In the DRIVE-SHIFT trial, 22% and 16% of participants in the immediate switch group experienced ALT and AST elevations greater than 1.25 X ULN, respectively, through 48 weeks on DELSTRIGO. For these ALT and AST elevations, no apparent patterns with regard to time to onset relative to switch were observed. One percent of participants had ALT or AST elevations greater than 5 X ULN through 48 weeks on DELSTRIGO. The ALT and AST elevations were generally asymptomatic, and not associated with bilirubin elevations. In comparison, 4% and 4% of participants in the delayed switch group experienced ALT and AST elevations of greater than 1.25 X ULN through 24 weeks on their baseline regimen.

Pregnancy/Breastfeeding

There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in individuals exposed to PIFELTRO or DELSTRIGO during pregnancy. Healthcare providers are encouraged to register patients by calling the Antiretroviral Pregnancy Registry (APR) at 1-800-258-4263.

Inform individuals with HIV-1 infection of the potential risks of breastfeeding, including: (1) HIV-1 transmission (in HIV-1–negative infants), (2) developing viral resistance (in HIV-1–positive infants), and (3) serious adverse reactions in a breastfed infant similar to those seen in adults.

About Merck

At Merck, known as MSD outside of the United States and Canada, we are unified around our purpose: We use the power of leading-edge science to save and improve lives around the world. For more than 130 years, we have brought hope to humanity through the development of important medicines and vaccines. We aspire to be the premier research-intensive biopharmaceutical company in the world – and today, we are at the forefront of research to deliver innovative health solutions that advance the prevention and treatment of diseases in people and animals. We foster a diverse and inclusive global workforce and operate responsibly every day to enable a safe, sustainable and healthy future for all people and communities. For more information, visit www.merck.com and connect with us on X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and LinkedIn.

Forward-Looking Statement of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, N.J., USA

This news release of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, N.J., USA (the “company”) includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based upon the current beliefs and expectations of the company’s management and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties. There can be no guarantees with respect to pipeline candidates that the candidates will receive the necessary regulatory approvals or that they will prove to be commercially successful. If underlying assumptions prove inaccurate or risks or uncertainties materialize, actual results may differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements.

Risks and uncertainties include but are not limited to, general industry conditions and competition; general economic factors, including interest rate and currency exchange rate fluctuations; the impact of pharmaceutical industry regulation and health care legislation in the United States and internationally; global trends toward health care cost containment; technological advances, new products and patents attained by competitors; challenges inherent in new product development, including obtaining regulatory approval; the company’s ability to accurately predict future market conditions; manufacturing difficulties or delays; financial instability of international economies and sovereign risk; dependence on the effectiveness of the company’s patents and other protections for innovative products; and the exposure to litigation, including patent litigation, and/or regulatory actions.

The company undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Additional factors that could cause results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements can be found in the company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 and the company’s other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) available at the SEC’s Internet site (www.sec.gov).

Please see Prescribing Information for PIFELTRO (doravirine) at: https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/p/pifeltro/pifeltro_pi.pdf and Patient Information for PIFELTRO at: https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/p/pifeltro/pifeltro_ppi.pdf

Please see Prescribing Information for DELSTRIGO (doravirine, lamivudine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) at: https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/d/delstrigo/delstrigo_pi.pdf and Patient Information for DELSTRIGO at: https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/d/delstrigo/delstrigo_ppi.pdf

ⁱ bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIKTARVY) is a registered trademark of Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Source: Merck & Co., Inc.

The chair of an expert group charged with advising the European Commission on the next Framework Programme for research and innovation has called for a campaign of “scientific activism” to implement independent governance models across the programme.

The European Research Council (ERC) is “the jewel of the crown” of EU research funding thanks to its independent Scientific Council, which draws up its own work programmes, Manuel Heitor said during a panel on competitiveness through frontier research organised by the ERC and the University of Copenhagen on October 7.

The former Portuguese research minister was more critical of the collaborative instruments in Horizon Europe and its predecessor, Horizon 2020. The Framework Programme “has become an excellent tool to distribute money, but it is not necessarily the best tool to do science, or to address industrial competitiveness, or to address emerging societal challenges,” he said.

According to his advisory group’s report, collaborative projects accounted for 78% of funding under Horizon 2020 and involved 11 participants on average, each receiving average funding of €127,000 over approximately three years. The remaining 22% of funds, which mostly support single beneficiaries, have had a greater impact, largely thanks to the ERC’s autonomy, Heitor said.

He urged the scientific community to speak to citizens and national and EU policymakers to show that the ERC is a “clear example of how to govern the rest of the Framework Programme.”

His report recommended strengthening the independence of the European Innovation Council and creating two new councils with independent boards, one on industrial competitiveness and technology, and the other on societal challenges, to steer collaborative research. However, this idea was not picked up by the Commission in its proposal for the post-2027 Horizon Europe programme.

Instead, there are concerns that collaborative research and innovation will come under even closer control by the Commission, which plans to link calls to the funding priorities of the future European Competitiveness Fund.

It’s also unclear what the push to simplify the EU funding landscape will mean for the ERC. Its president, Maria Leptin, previously expressed concern that plans for a single rulebook to be applied across Horizon Europe and the Competitiveness Fund would restrict the ERC’s flexibility to implement its own processes. However, in a recent interview with Science|Business, Leptin revealed that the ERC had received reassurance from the Commission that it would not fall under a common rulebook.

In June, before the Commission presented its proposal for the continuation of Horizon Europe, the ERC’s Scientific Council sent a letter to its president, Ursula von der Leyen, and research Commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva requesting even greater independence and a stable, long-term budget.

Protecting fundamental research

During the Copenhagen conference, Denmark’s science minister, Christina Egelund, underlined the importance of “bold investments in innovation,” starting with fundamental research. The Danish presidency “will make sure to bring [Horizon Europe] negotiations forward and not to lose sight of frontier research,” she said.

This is reflected in the Commission’s proposal for the next Horizon Europe programme, which foresees a significant budget increase for the ERC.

---

Related articles

---

The ERC is also at the centre of the EU’s efforts to lure disaffected scientists from the US, but speaking at the conference Leptin insisted there will be no winners from the US government’s budget cuts and assaults on academic freedom.

“We’re all going to suffer,” she said, pointing to US cuts to climate data stations and model organism databases. “We attract these scientists over, and then we say, sorry, no databases [. . .] There is no benefit to be gained.”

Until the US situation improves, Europe should offer scientists a “haven,” in a “non-selfish manner,” Leptin said. “If they come and spend half time here, that’s enough, that reinforces collaboration.”

Lottery funding

The following day, Copenhagen hosted a life science summit under the Danish presidency of the EU Council, where competitiveness was once again on the agenda.

Europe needs more fundamental research, but it also needs bold ideas to make public funding more efficient, said Margrethe Vestager, former commissioner for competition and now chair of the board of the Technical University of Denmark.

“There are so many great ideas for the public funding, and I think it feels like a lottery as to whether you get it or not, so why not make it a lottery?” she said. “Then, if you don’t get funding that year, you can get more points, so you have a better chance the next year.”

The objective should be to reduce the time and resources required to obtain funding, she added. 

The Commission has made simplification a priority, and Zaharieva has said it is “exploring” the idea of introducing lottery funding in the next iteration of Horizon Europe.