Institutional choices · 2027–2031
Use the 42-person roster as a starting network for 2027–2031 planning. Let researchers correct the map, define a small number of shared questions, and expand only when pilots produce independently inspectable evidence. This is a proposed strategy, not a forecast of grants, rankings or scientific discoveries.
Support questions that require complementary expertise and generate reusable evidence, including informative negative results.
Measure: Externally reproduced results, reused datasets or benchmarks, and substantive cross-field outputs; establish a baseline before setting targets.
Make participation voluntary, give junior researchers ownership of meaningful subproblems, and credit software, datasets and experimental work alongside papers.
Measure: Researcher-reported value, protected research time, co-supervision quality and retention of participating trainees; no individual ranking.
Maintain a mix of eligible domestic, bilateral, international and applied routes. Budget proposal preparation and pilot work before pursuing large awards.
Measure: Qualified applications, award value and duration, unrestricted versus restricted support, renewal risk and concentration by funder; no invented success probabilities.
Build visible contributions that external groups can use: independent replications, shared methods, training exchanges and responsible translational outcomes.
Measure: Verified external reuse, repeat partner engagement, invited scientific contributions and independently evidenced public benefit; publicity alone is not an impact measure.
Reduce dependence on one grant route, one key operator or one unavailable dataset. Give each initiative a documented continuity and ownership plan.
Measure: Funding concentration, access continuity, documented methods, coverage of critical skills and recovery exercises; the current institutional baseline is unknown.
Have all roster members review their own page; resolve two provisional mappings before team assignment. Convene short problem workshops and select a small pilot set based on willing owners, data access and a testable question.
A proposed starting portfolio is research-AI evidence, energy-bounded genomics and hospital-flow modelling. Confirm availability first; replace a pilot if its data or leadership is missing. Record baselines and stop rules before experiments.
Invite an independent group to test the strongest results. Develop bilateral proposals and doctoral exchanges with qualified partners. Keep speculative quantum and materials combinations at a small feasibility stage until compatibility is shown.
Build larger consortia only around demonstrated shared questions. Coordinate applications through the Research Authority and commercialization through BIRAD. Recheck every programme and participation rule at the time of application.
Compare outcomes to the initial baseline and counterfactual where feasible. Renew useful platforms and relationships; retire stalled combinations without treating a negative experiment as a researcher failure.
Eligible calls, willing partners and travel/data permissions remain available.
Response: Use bilateral projects to build evidence and consider a focused ERC or doctoral consortium after scientific and institutional qualification.
Programme rules, association terms or partner constraints reduce eligibility.
Response: Recheck the exact affected instrument and pursue qualified alternatives. Preserve portable methods and domestic pilot continuity; do not assume one proposal suspends all international collaboration.
Researchers, technicians, students or facilities cannot support additional commitments.
Response: Fund enabling staff, reuse facilities and narrow the active portfolio. Do not count a named researcher as committed capacity.
A mechanism fails to replicate, a benchmark gain vanishes or the required data cannot be secured.
Response: Publish the bounded negative result where useful, stop that branch and redirect resources to a better-supported question.
No scenario probabilities assigned. EU programme and participation uncertainty is a documented reason to keep several routes open.[152][153][154]
The Research Authority can assess grant fit and international partnerships; the EU desk supports consortium and proposal preparation. BIRAD provides the technology-transfer route.[148][149][150]
Proposal: appoint a programme coordinator to maintain researcher corrections, pilot decisions and the funding calendar. This report assigns no staff commitments or budget.
| Risk | Before proceeding |
|---|---|
| A similar name or outdated affiliation assigns expertise to the wrong person. | Researcher confirmation and stable institutional identity links before committing a team; keep provisional pages visible. |
| A plausible cross-field story is mistaken for scientific novelty. | A focused literature and prior-art review by domain experts before claiming novelty; proposals remain low-confidence hypotheses. |
| A large grant distracts from an unfundable or unavailable research team. | Check the current call, host eligibility, partner role, scope and available effort before proposal work. |
| Metrics reward visibility over useful contribution. | Agree an impact baseline with researchers and partners; track reuse, reproducibility and concrete public benefit separately from publicity. |
| A centralized map becomes a personnel surveillance or ranking tool. | Use professional research facts and voluntary interests, restrict access, provide correction rights, and exclude retreat logistics and inferred personal traits. |
| A patent is mistaken for an owned, usable or commercially valuable asset. | Treat each record as attribution evidence only; verify ownership, scope and licensing with BIRAD and qualified counsel before a transaction. |
