The Insider

The Insider, Season 2, Episode 3 “Beautiful Frameworks, Precarious Reality: How Europe Designs Research Careers” Europe has spent years refining its approach to research careers. New frameworks, recommendations and initiatives now promise sustainability, fairness and better working conditions for researchers across the European Research Area. And yet, for many people working inside the system, precarity and pressure remain part of everyday life. In this episode, Ricardo Miguéis brings together Luísa Henriques and Susana Rodrigues to look more closely at the gap between policy ambition and lived experience, and to ask what Europe’s research career frameworks are really delivering. Luísa Henriques is a Senior Policy Analyst and Advisor to the Board of Directors at Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) in Lisbon.   She has been closely involved in European discussions on research careers, including the 2021 Council Recommendation, and offers an insider’s perspective on how these frameworks were shaped, what they are meant to change, and the constraints that shape their implementation. Susana Rodrigues approaches the same questions from inside research organisations. As Head of the HR Department at INESC TEC and a researcher in Occupational Health at INESC TEC’s Centre for Biomedical Engineering (CBER), she works directly with researchers navigating short-term contracts, evaluation pressure and uncertainty, and studies the health consequences that follow. The episode unfolds in two parts: Part 1 – The promise behind the frameworks The first part looks at how research careers became a policy priority at European level. Luísa reflects on the intentions behind recent reforms, the focus on skills, mobility and sustainability, and the effort to professionalise career paths beyond the traditional academic model. At the same time, both guests point to a persistent tension: Europe continues to rely heavily on project-based funding and fixed-term contracts, even as it promotes long-term career development. On paper, the frameworks are strong. In practice, they sit within structures that often pull in the opposite direction. Part 2 – Human cost, awareness and implementation The second part of the conversation turns to the human impact of this gap. Drawing on occupational health research and European-level evidence, Susana discusses the high prevalence of stress and mental health challenges among researchers, not as individual issues, but as systemic outcomes. One idea keeps returning: awareness is no longer the problem. The real challenge lies in implementation. Building systems that genuinely support people takes time, resources and cultural change, both within institutions and across the wider research ecosystem. Rather than offering easy solutions, the episode closes with a more difficult question. If Europe chooses to keep its current research career structures, is it also prepared to be honest about what they demand from the people who make the system work? For The Insider, this conversation speaks directly to the broader theme of Season 2: how Europe designs progress, and whose realities are taken into account when policy meets practice. Listen to “Beautiful Frameworks, Precarious Reality: How Europe Designs Research Careers” on Apple Podcasts — — — Artwork note: The artwork for this episode reflects its central tension. Europe’s research career frameworks are carefully designed and elegant, like the ornate umbrella shielding the statue from the sun. They are built to address visible pressures in the system, represented by the harsh light above. But when the real rain comes (the less visible realities of precarity, uncertainty and mental strain) that protection often falls short. The rain symbolises what the frameworks struggle to cover: the human consequences that appear once policy meets practice. Elegant in theory. Precarious in practice.

The Insider - Season 2, Episode 2 "European Innovation Scoreboard 2025 Explained: Bridging Data and Policy with Alasdair Reid" Season 2 continues with a topic that sits right at the crossroads of evidence and strategy in European research: the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) 2025. We talk a lot about innovation in Europe — but do we really understand the numbers we rely on to judge how well we’re doing? In this episode, Ricardo Miguéis is joined by Alasdair Reid, economist and long-standing contributor to Europe’s innovation policy framework. Alasdair has been closely involved with the European Innovation Scoreboard since its origin, overseeing key elements of innovation policy benchmarking, and currently serves as coordinator for the 2024-2027 period. His perspective reflects a deep, system-level understanding of how innovation indicators are developed, interpreted, and translated into policy. With the new EIS 2025 now out, this conversation is a chance to take a step back and look at what these indicators actually tell us, and what they don’t. Part 1 – Making Sense of the Numbers The first half of the episode looks at how the scoreboard came about, how it has changed over the years, and what the 2025 edition reveals about Europe’s innovation landscape. Ricardo and Alasdair discuss: What stands out in the EIS 2025 results, and where the data remains silentWhy countries with similar tools and spending patterns often move in very different directionsThe role that governance, trust and institutional capacity quietly play in shaping innovationWhy benchmark indicators often become political stories, not just technical onesHow the scoreboard can be both incredibly useful — and sometimes misleading It’s a reminder that metrics don’t simply describe reality; they influence how we understand it. Part 2 – From Indicators to Strategy (and FP10) The conversation then widens to Europe’s bigger innovation challenges and the structural questions behind them. This includes: The long-standing regional paradox: why some areas surge ahead while others remain stuckLessons from countries like China or Canada, and what Europe can and cannot borrow from themThe persistent gap between policy intentions and actual outcomes on the groundWhether our current indicators are fit for a world shaped by green, digital, social and geopolitical transitionsHow FP10 might look if Europe treated metrics not just as a scoreboard, but as a steering tool One theme keeps resurfacing: measurement shapes strategy, and Europe may need to rethink what it values if it wants different results. For anyone involved in European R&I — from research organisations and innovation agencies to policymakers and analysts — this episode is an opportunity to hear directly from someone who has helped define the indicators we all work with. It sheds light on the logic behind the EIS, its limitations, and the broader implications for the next Framework Programme. Listen to “European Innovation Scoreboard 2025 Explained: Bridging Data and Policy with Alasdair Reid” on The Insider.

The Insider Podcast - Season 2, Episode 1 "Progress Reimagined: Putting Societies at the Heart of European Research" We’re back! Season 2 of The Insider opens with a big question – maybe THE question – for European research right now: What happens when society becomes an afterthought in how we fund and govern science? And what would it take to put people back at the centre of the picture? In this first episode, Ricardo Miguéis sits down with Dr. Gabi Lombardo, Director of the European Alliance for Social Sciences and Humanities (EASSH) and someone who’s spent years trying to fix exactly that. Gabi has seen the system from every angle, from the London School of Economics and the ERC to Science Europe and EASSH, and she’s built one of the strongest cases for treating the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) as co-designers of European R&I, not just background noise. The episode unfolds in two parts: Part 1 – Where we come from Gabi reflects on her path, the institutional blind spots she’s seen up close, and why SSH remains structurally misunderstood in Europe. She talks about the famous Frascati Manual problem, fragmented national systems, and why “integration” is not the same as genuine collaboration. Behind the acronyms lies a deeper issue: the way Europe still defines what counts as “research excellence” – often in ways that overlook the human dimensions of progress. Part 2 – Where we go next The conversation dives into FP10, and the new Society policy window, asking what it would really mean to let SSH help design missions, instead of commenting from the sidelines. From the obsession with “resilience” to the need to look beyond GDP when measuring progress, this part links directly with how Europe defines ambition and what kind of future it is actually building. Throughout the episode, one idea keeps coming back: Europe doesn’t just need to fund SSH, it needs to learn from it. Because, if we want to talk seriously about trust, democracy, or legitimacy, we can’t treat social knowledge as an accessory. It’s a public good. For INESC Brussels HUB, this episode sets the tone for Season 2 – a season about how Europe chooses to innovate, and what kind of progress it truly wants to build. Listen to “Progress Reimagined: Putting Societies at the Heart of European Research”, now streaming on The Insider.

The Insider – Season 2, Episode 0 Season 2 of The Insider starts with a special Episode 0 – a pre-launch recorded live during an internal INESC webinar in October: “Understanding FP10 & the European Competitiveness Fund: Strategic implications for INESC.” In this episode, host Ricardo Miguéis talks with Carla Matias dos Santos, Research and Space Counsellor at the Permanent Representation of Portugal to the European Union. From her position inside the Council policy ecosystem, Carla has been closely involved in the political discussions around the Framework Programme 10 (FP10) and the proposed European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) – two instruments that will shape how Europe organises and funds research and innovation in the next decade. The session was originally designed as an internal workshop for the INESC community. We’re now sharing it more widely because the discussion is highly relevant for anyone trying to understand where the European research and innovation policy is heading. During the conversation, Carla and Ricardo look at: How FP10 is being structured – including key novelties such as dual-use research, research and technology infrastructures, and changes to widening measures. The rationale behind the European Competitiveness Fund, its four policy windows, and the idea of following the full path from research to deployment, manufacturing, and market uptake. The links between FP10 and the ECF: shared governance, a common rulebook, and what this means in practice for collaborative research and strategic domains like AI, digital, decarbonisation, health, resilience, security and defence. What all this implies for research organisations: larger and more directional projects, stronger emphasis on partnership-building, and the need to think earlier and more strategically about positioning. For INESC, this episode also serves as an early step on the way to the HUB Winter Meeting 2026, feeding into our work on scenario building, FP10 readiness and long-term strategic alignment across centres and institutes. Whether you work within INESC, lead a research organisation elsewhere in Europe, or are involved in designing and implementing R&I policy and programmes, this episode offers a very concrete, practitioner-level view of the FP10–ECF debate. Listen to Episode 0 and explore how FP10 and the ECF are likely to frame European research and innovation in the next decade.

In this episode, Ricardo Migueis speaks with Matthias Björnmalm, Secretary General of CESAR, about the shifting role of European universities in a time when science, sovereignty, and security are increasingly intertwined. Matthias reflects on his international journey through different research environments and how those experiences have shaped his views on collaboration, responsibility, and the broader role of science in society. The conversation dives into CESAR’s work supporting European universities of science and technology, its diverse membership, and the careful balance between openness and research security. Matthias explains how dual-use technologies, defense research, and governance structures require thoughtful, interdisciplinary approaches rooted in strong ethical foundations. Ricardo and Matthias explore the tension between academic autonomy and institutional compliance, the influence of European funding frameworks, and the risk of overly directive policies that could undermine innovation. They also discuss the importance of foresight in preparing for future skills needs and the responsibilities universities carry when it comes to societal impact and global engagement. Throughout the episode, Matthias makes the case for universities especially technical ones to act as reflective, engaged institutions that not only generate knowledge but help steer societal progress across local, national, and European levels. Takeaways European universities must navigate the growing intersection between science, security, and sovereignty while preserving academic integrity.Governance models in universities must balance institutional autonomy with compliance and societal accountability, particularly in sensitive domains.Ethical engagement in research, especially in defense and dual use technologies, requires interdisciplinary input and reflective institutional mechanisms.Top down policy frameworks risk limiting innovation and undermining the capacity for critical scientific exploration.Universities should actively shape policy discourse, particularly in strategic areas such as research security, knowledge protection, and societal resilience.Open engagement with global partners must be balanced against emerging constraints in knowledge security and geopolitical shifts.The concept of “autonomy traps” illustrates the risks of assigning universities responsibilities beyond their core missions without adequate support or authority.Strategic coherence across European funding instruments remains essential; policy structures should prioritise functional synergies over administrative consolidation.Technical universities have a pivotal role in foresight processes, particularly in anticipating future skills needs and guiding societal transitions.CESAR positions itself as a solution oriented, peer driven network that aims to elevate European science and technology in service of the public good.Research integrity frameworks must evolve to address contemporary challenges, supporting informed and contextual decision making at all institutional levels.Cultural change within funding institutions and governance structures is necessary to enable effective and resilient synergies.Universities are not isolated entities but are embedded in societal systems. They must engage meaningfully with their communities to retain legitimacy and relevance.Maintaining openness in higher education and research requires thoughtful mechanisms that do not compromise institutional trust or mission.Europe’s strategic autonomy in science and technology must be grounded in collaborative foresight, broad engagement, and support for bottom up innovation. The 2025 INESC Brussels HUB Summer Meeting, titled "Strategic Autonomy & Dual-Use R&I: Coherence, Capabilities & Europe’s Future. Access the full programme and registration details here