Blog post by Stephen Wyber
Following the open call for evidence over the (European) summer, we have now reached the next step in the process that will lead us, likely in September 2026, to the publication of a draft European Research Area Act – a public questionnaire (deadline 5 January 2026).
Knowledge Rights 21 has strongly supported the proposal for such an Act, underlining that it offers a possibility to legislate with a focus on the needs of research and researchers. This contrasts with a tendency in the past for the EU to regulate research by accident or as an after-thought through legislation in other policy areas, focused on other policy goals.
In particular, we have seen the Act as an opportunity to ensure that the rules around the generation, sharing and application of knowledge, in research, education and culture, are fit for purpose in a digital age.
The initial consultation on the Act underlined broad support for the various issues that the Commission had already identified as potential areas for action, with a welcome emphasis on the importance of access and Open Science.
Now, a questionnaire is open until 5 January 2026, asking for views on a more specific set of questions in different areas, focusing on assessing both problems and potential solutions.
The questions asked allow us to shine a light already on where the Commission is going in its thinking about the Act, in particular about how far different issues will be addressed through legislation, and how prescriptive this will be.
We could end up with anything from simply asserting principles to much more detailed standards – the table in annexsets out the potential actions to show this range of options explicitly. Different actors may be affected – research funding and performing organisations could have obligations to develop a variety of plans and strategies, as may national governments. The latter may also face a looser or tighter set of rules around how much they spend on research and how.
Researchers may see themselves awarded new rights and freedoms, while private sector actors may face new pressures and incentives to comply with policy goals, but also see greater possibilities to employ researchers.
The below looks at individual sections of the questionnaire, and what we can tell from them.
Funding and Coordination
Increasing and coordinating R&D spending remains a priority, although there is an open question about whether it is better to approach this through setting specific targets or rather requiring plans from governments. There is also a question about whether to encourage public spending to be used to leverage private.
As for coordination, potential problems touch on both coordination between national and EU initiatives, and between EU initiatives. There is also an effort to understand whether existing partnership models help, and to get views on the idea that the European Research Area Committee (which brings together senior research officials) should get involved.
Key takeaway: The level of ambition of the ERA Act in promoting higher and more coordinated spending remains uncertain, and there is still little detail as to the mechanics of how coordination might happen.
Freedom of Scientific Research
The potential problems suggested focus both on individual researchers’ freedoms and on institutional autonomy (as well as a hint that institutions may need to adapt their own approaches in order to protect researchers). The argument that lack of job security and wider cultural pressures can resist choice also appears. Among solutions, legally binding measures at EU level, minimum standards, the establishment of rights for researchers, compliance mechanisms, and awareness raising are proposed.
Key takeaway: It appears that both a narrower and more ambitious approach here is possible, ranging from simply asserting principles to more detailed provisions, some of which may also affect how research institutions work internally.
Gender Equality
Aregular theme in responses to the call for evidence was the need to protect and promote gender plans in research. In this respect, the questionnaire identifies as potential challenges a lack of investment in and coordination of gender policies, limiting monitoring and evaluation, a lack of consideration of gender in research projects, a lack of access to care support, and a lack of private sector involvement. Potential solutions include minimum standards for gender equality plans, minimum spending thresholds, more mainstreaming of gender into programmes, pressure on private sector actors, and a possibility to use research funding (in part) to support care programmes (for example, for young children).
Key takeaway: There is a clear emphasis on the need to continue to promote gender equality, with some potentially far-reaching proposals around spending. At the same time, the ERA Act may only point to principles.
Careers and Mobility
The questions raise three broad areas of potential concern. Around working conditions, short-term contracts, poor social security cover and lack of career support come up. Around mobility, it is limited mutual recognition of qualifications and visa issues. Finally, within existing structures the Commission asks how much a lack of awareness and use of existing structures may be. Possible solutions include greater job stability and social security coverage, promoting mutual recognition of qualifications (both through regulation and encouragement) and ensuring that job adverts are in different languages, visa facilitation, and a further look at mapping career structures.
Key takeaway: More ambitious measures here would imply changes to employment laws, adding further detail to existing rules around social security, as well as elevating existing frameworks on research careers to the legislative level. Other measures also build on the sort of rules the EU already has around free movement of workers.
Circulation of Knowledge
The Commission highlights issues around both access to and sharing of knowledge, with a strong focus on publicly funded research, as well as the costs of a lack of harmonisation across Europe. Other questions explore the extent of worries around rising costs, lack of information about agreements, and the impacts of outdated assessment frameworks.
In terms of the answers, these point towards placing requirements on researchers to retain rights, as well as to develop data management plans. There is the suggestion of legal action to make it easier to adapt and reuse public data. Yet at the same time, there are also questions pointing to the idea that all that is needed is more education, as well as other measures around applying standardisation and promoting the release of data in line with FAIR principles, as well as pressuring institutions and funders to reform research assessment.
Key takeaway: With much key decision-making in the hands of researchers and research institutions, a lot here focuses on creating obligations for plans of different sorts, including on research assessment – how these would be enforced is a question. There is, nonetheless, also a pointer towards Secondary Publication Rights and wider copyright reform, but also an opening for those who oppose reform simply to say that it is a question of education and leaving things to the market.
European Research Infrastructures
The main idea here is around allowing parties from a wider range of countries to join these infrastructures, as well as to make it easier to establish infrastructures and harmonise their legal status.
Key takeaway: Proposals here focus more on governance. Steps to support private sector access are more likely to feature in the planned European Innovation Act.
Knowledge Valorisation
The questionnaire asks how far a lack of incentives (including research assessment), lack of capacity, resourcing and skills and difficulties in moving between research and industry are issues. In terms of solutions, it asks about the merits of steps to raise the priority around knowledge valorisation for Member States, to update incentives and assessment practices, to allow researchers to exploit innovations that universities do not, and softer measures around strategies and competence frameworks for knowledge valorisation.
Key takeaway: Most of the proposals here focus more on principles and softer measures to encourage valorisation activities, but again research assessment appears. The notion that researchers can exploit ideas that universities do not could imply legislative change.
AI and Whistleblowing
Problems identified around AI guidance on ethics and responsibility focus on a lack of harmonisation in guidelines (complicating cross-border collaboration), as well as legal uncertainties. Suggested responses include capacity building on AI governance monitoring, encouraging alignment on AI standards, and principles. There is also a section on whistleblowing. Here, the problems proposed are around a lack of channels and mechanisms, and awareness of how to use them. Solutions include an EU-level mechanism, as well as connections to national authorities.
Key takeaway: Measures here also tend to be more about principles, unless the ERA Act goes as far as to try to define (or mandate the definition of) principles here, as well as to set up a European body.
Research Security
Problems include a lack of harmonisation, leading to a lack of a level-playing field, easier conditions for some researchers than others, and difficulty in cooperation. Solutions focus on simply highlighting research security as an issue, and setting minimum standards.
Key takeaway: Again, there is both a maximalist and minimalist approach, from simply articulating a goal to more detailed definition of standards.
Call to Action
The nature of the survey invites as wide as possible a set of inputs – we therefore encourage librarians, libraries, library associations and other like-minded actors to respond by the deadline – 5 January 2026.
Annex: Interventionist vs Laissez‑Faire Options (Summary Table)
22 October 2025
