ERC-Plus: jackpot science or missed chance to fix academia?

1 ERC-Plus: jackpot science or missed chance to fix academia? My reflections on ERC-Plus, Europe’s newest ultra-competitive research grant and what it tells us about the academic culture we’re building. The European Research Council (ERC) has long been a gold standard for scientific excellence — funding bold high-risk / high-gain ideas and ambitious scientists across career stages. So when news broke of ERC-Plus, a new €7 million mega-grant scheme “for projects that go beyond,” I was curious. Then I did the math. And like many colleagues, I started asking questions. This post gathers my reflections — part appreciation, part concern — on what ERC-Plus might mean for the research ecosystem in Europe. ERC-Plus: jackpot science or missed opportunity to build a healthier academic culture? 2 1. First, credit where it’s due At a time when geopolitical turmoil threatens international science, securing additional funding for research is no small feat. Hats off to the ERC team for pulling this off. It’s encouraging to see more investment in a program that has become one of the great success stories of global science funding. We need more of that — not less. 2. But then the numbers hit… The news annoucements left me puzzled. This might be a case of another news report distorting the data, but based on the report, about hirty grants will be awarded. Applicants are warned that their chances are 30 times worse than with a regular ERC grant. Let’s unpack that: • Regular ERC success rate: ~15% • Estimated ERC-Plus success rate: ~0.5% • Projected number of applications: ~6,000 And here’s the kicker: current ERC holders and applicants aren’t even eligible. Which raises the obvious question — who is this really for? Who are these 6,000 applicants? My original post on this is here: 3. A 0.5% success rate is not a badge of honor Let’s be blunt: a program with a 0.5% success rate is not elite. It’s wasteful. Thousands of highly trained scientists will sink dozens of hours into writing proposals with vanishing odds of success. This is not just inefficient — it’s disrespectful of scientific labour. Worse still, it appears the full two-stage B1/B2 process will remain in place. So, hundreds if not thousands of applicants will write detailed B2 proposals that no one will ever read, given that B2 is not evaluated when the application doesn’t proceed to the next evaluation stage. Economists call this opportunity cost. Scientists call it burnout. 4. “Open to all career stages” — but really? The ERC says the scheme is open to all levels — but also that the evaluation will demand “more evidence of past achievements” than regular grants. Sounds familiar? That’s a dog whistle for senior, already well-funded PIs. It’s not a ladder for the next generation — it’s another trophy for those who’ve already made it. If the goal is to attract US-based researchers to Europe, let’s do it with a vision that empowers earlyand mid-career talent — not just reel in aging stars. Otherwise, we’re reinforcing a top-heavy academic system that’s already creaking under its own weight. And let’s not ignore the string of scandals that have rocked ‘star scientists’ in recent years. Flashy CVs and CNS-heavy publication lists shouldn’t fool us. 3 Don’t be a “deliveroo” student. Star PIs who reward “Deliveroo” students build a culture that fosters a dynamic where students who produce desired results are favored, regardless of quality of the work or even research integrity. If you find yourself in such an environment, seek a healthier academic setting as soon as you can. See also: What’s a toxic environment for a PhD student? 5. ERC used to lead on culture. What happened? For years, ERC was quietly shaping academic culture for the better. Its evaluation forms asked not only about scientific excellence, but also about mentorship, leadership, and contributions to the community. That mattered. It changed how people built their CVs. I often pointed colleagues to the ERC evaluation criteria “To what extent has the PI demonstrated sound leadership in the training and advancement of young scientists?” to show how serious funders like ERC value mentoring. “You got scored on that, so you better build a track record,” was my message. That dimension seems to have been dropped. You don’t get scored on this question anymore. And I worry that ERC leadership doesn’t fully realise the impact they could have in nudging culture. Funders like HHMI have shown how expectations around mentoring and team culture can be built into funding schemes without compromising scientific ambition and quality. 4 2023 Work Programme for the European Research Council (ERC) instructing panelists and reviewers to evaluate applicants based on their track record and leadership in training and mentoring young scientists. You don’t get scored on this under current evaluation criteria. For further details see the post: More on toxic academia: does investing time in outreach, mentoring and community activities matter? 6. Final thoughts: more money, wrong model I want to end on a constructive note. I’m genuinely pleased that the ERC budget is increasing and that Europe is reacting to the recent events affecting US academia. But the choice to funnel it into a prestige lottery is, in my view, a mistake. Imagine instead: • Boosting success rates for existing schemes • Launching a dedicated program for next-gen talent • Incentivising mentoring and team science • Consulting economists and behavioural scientists on application burden and evaluation processes We could build something that funds outstanding science and shapes a healthier, fairer, more dynamic research culture. Why not both? 5 ERC-Plus might have been a chance to do that. It’s not too late — but the current design doesn’t inspire confidence. P.S. For background, here’s my earlier post on how ERC once led the way in recognising mentorship and team leadership, as well as related blogs: 👉 The European Research Council makes a u-turn, in “More on toxic academia: does investing time in outreach, mentoring and community activities matter?)” 👉 What’s a toxic environment for a PhD student? 👉 On HHMI’s progressive actions in support of open science and a healthier academic culture, in “Herding cats — How to get biologists to preprint.” Does investing time in outreach and mentoring matter? Cartoon source: DALL-E. 6 Acknowledgements I’m grateful to colleagues for contributing ideas that helped shaped this post through their comments on X and Bluesky. These include: Adriano Aguzzi, Alper Akay, Rebecca Mosher and Yasin Dagdas. The article was written with assistance from ChatGPT. This article is available on a CC-BY license via Zenodo. Cite as: Kamoun, S. (2025) ERC-Plus: jackpot science or missed chance to fix academia? “Discouraging applications is not how you fund the most exciting science,” says Rebecca Mosher.