The Growing Demand for ERC Funding
The European Research Council (ERC), established in 2007 as part of the European Union's Horizon Europe programme, has become one of the world's most prestigious funders of frontier research. With an annual budget of approximately €2.3 billion, it supports groundbreaking projects across all scientific fields through schemes like Starting Grants for early-career researchers up to seven years post-PhD, Consolidator Grants for those 7-12 years post-PhD, Advanced Grants for established leaders, Synergy Grants for collaborative teams, Proof of Concept Grants to validate ideas, and the newer ERC Plus Grants for senior researchers. These bottom-up grants prioritize scientific excellence over predefined topics, attracting top talent globally.
However, recent years have seen an unprecedented surge in applications. For instance, ERC Starting Grants 2026 received 4,807 proposals, a 22.4% increase from 2025's 3,928, while Synergy Grants hit a record 957, up 34%. Consolidator Grants showed a 32% rise compared to 2024. This boom, partly attributed to AI-assisted proposal writing and economic pressures pushing researchers toward stable funding, has overwhelmed the peer-review system. Panels, once handling 50-150 proposals, now face over 250 each during intensive one-week sessions in Brussels.
ERC's Announcement of Stricter Measures
On April 16, 2026, ERC President Maria Leptin issued an open letter explaining the need for 'painful measures' due to unsustainable growth. Success rates were stagnating despite streamlining efforts like shorter proposals and more reviewers. To protect review quality, the ERC proposed extending resubmission bans: previously, a 'B' grade at step 1 meant a one-year wait, 'C' two years. The new rules for 2027 calls barred 'C' scorers from 2025/2026 and 'B' from 2026, with retroactive effects excluding some 2024 applicants—potentially up to four years out.
Leptin emphasized the 91 panels' burden and called for researchers to self-select, advising postponement if ideas needed maturity. The changes applied across schemes, aiming to reduce volume without budget hikes.
Key Details of the Controversial Policy
The policy targeted step 1 scores, where proposals are screened for excellence. A 'C' (not excellent) in recent calls meant ineligibility, extending waits significantly for iterative high-risk ideas common in frontier research. For Synergy Grants, multi-PI complexity amplified issues. ERC argued prior 'soft measures' failed amid 30%+ yearly surges, including from US researchers fleeing domestic cuts.
This retroactivity drew ire, as 2024 applicants suddenly faced barriers. Early-career researchers, reliant on Starting Grants, feared stalled careers; bold proposals often score borderline initially.
The Rapid Researcher Response
Within days, cancer biologist Johanna Joyce from the University of Lausanne organized an open letter, amassing over 1,000 signatures from 200+ institutions in 36 countries—mostly senior professors and ERC grantees. Signers acknowledged reviewer strain but rejected punishment over process reform, proposing two-stage applications with brief step 1 for filtering. They warned of stifling innovation, talent drain, and signaling administrative priorities over excellence.
Molecular biologist Anthony Guihur called it '3000% the wrong direction' on Bluesky. Joyce praised ERC's responsiveness post-reversal: 'The underlying pressure remains real.'
ERC's Reversal and Official Statement
On April 29, the Scientific Council announced reversal for core schemes: Starting, Consolidator, Advanced, and ERC Plus revert to prior rules (B: 1-year ban, C: 2 years). Synergy keeps wider bans (C 2025/2026, B 2026 ineligible); Proof of Concept has selection limits. 2024 cohort remains eligible.
Leptin: 'We value suggestions... vital to address increasing applications while maintaining highest quality.' Council to review alternatives for 2028 WP.ERC official statement
Photo by Martin Sanchez on Unsplash
Community Reactions to the U-Turn
Researchers hailed the 'swift response,' crediting collective action. Joyce noted dialogue opening, though surge persists. Senior academics worried for juniors; one grantee feared 'discouraging bold ideas.' Optimism for two-stage processes, but calls for budget boosts in Horizon Europe post-2027.
Nature commentary urged capacity expansion to match ambition.
Implications for Early-Career Scientists
Starting Grants (€1.5M, 5 years) are lifelines for postdocs building labs. Reversal protects them from multi-year exclusions, vital as ERC funds 10% of EU frontier research. Yet, with success rates ~10-15%, iterative applications are norm; policy risked career gaps amid job scarcity.
Europe's universities, hosting 80%+ ERC projects, benefit from retained talent retention.Nature on researcher relief
Broader Challenges in European Research Funding
ERC's €16B Horizon 2021-2027 share strains under demand; similar surges hit NSF, NIH. AI aids writing, but quality filters lag. Reviewer burnout threatens rigor; alternatives like lotteries or triage debated.
Synergy/POC restrictions signal targeted fixes for complex schemes.
Lessons Learned and Path Forward
The episode showcases researcher agency and ERC agility, fostering trust. Future: two-step apps, AI triage, budget hikes? Horizon post-2027 proposals eye ERC expansion. Universities urged to support internal grant coaching.
For applicants: monitor 2028 WP; refine via feedback. ERC remains Europe's excellence beacon.
Stakeholder Perspectives Across Europe
From Lausanne to Brussels, voices united. UK post-Brexit researchers, 15% of applicants, fear further barriers. German Max Planck, French CNRS hail reversal. Universities like Heidelberg, Oxford prepare for 2027 calls unchanged for mains.
Global Context and Competitive Landscape
US brain drain boosts ERC apps; NIH flat budgets push relocations. ERC's 17% Horizon share positions Europe competitively, but sustainability key amid geopolitical tensions.