OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Swiss National Science Foundation

SNSF

The Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) promotes scientific research in Switzerland, its integration and international competitiveness by paying particular attention to the promotion of young scientists.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Lucilla Sioli (Director Communications Networks, Content and Technology) and SwissCore, Contact Office for European Research, Innovation and Education

5 Dec 2025 · Regulatory issues; Innovation; AI and Robotics

Meeting with Carole Mancel-Blanchard (Head of Unit Research and Innovation) and SwissCore, Contact Office for European Research, Innovation and Education

5 Feb 2025 · Exchange of views with the new President of the Scientific Council of the Swiss National Science Foundation on the future of science funding in the EU and the road to the FP10 in the light of the Draghi, Letta and Heitor Reports.

Response to Options for support for R&D of dual-use technologies

30 Apr 2024

Response from the Swiss National Science Foundation: Option 1 offers an effective method for harnessing dual-use technologies through the current framework and immediate application of existing initiatives. A mechanism for identifying research of potential military value could further mobilize funding and support for projects in critical areas, enhancing both civilian and defense capabilities. Option 1 is based on one of the great strengths of the European FP: the ability to identify and expand the potential of research with an open awareness, strong networking, and sustainable dynamics, even in targeted funding schemes. Systematic screening and resource provision that promote spin-offs can not only support defense efforts but also motivate researchers to identify potentially new forms of innovation and strengthen Europe's technological leadership in strategic areas like AI or space. Option 2, poses far-reaching challenges and concerns. While it would allow flexibility in funding strategically important technologies aimed at both civilian and non-civilian use, it raises fundamental questions about the direction of European research funding. The blurring of the current separation between civilian and military research could lead to a significant risk of a crowding out effect making the FP partially blind to civil purposes. This would undermine the current principle of European research funding, placing a strong emphasis on civilian applications and the connected potential. Projects with lower level of innovativeness, societal relevance, and speed in the innovation process would have a comparative advantage. It also risks increasing complexity and bureaucracy in application and project execution, deterring some civil actors, particularly SME. Identifying and appropriately labelling dual-use potential could place additional requirements on researchers and institutions without the necessary resources. Implementing Option 2 would also lead to uncertainties in program design and execution. Developing new guidelines and security systems and conditions and introducing complex protocol to deal with sensitive information, increasing complexity of existing processes. Opening the FP for military research may also make collaboration with like-minded and associated partner countries more difficult, and they would be partly excluded from European programs, weaking the whole European R&I system. This could lead to a loss of relevance of the program as a funding instrument capable of enabling meaningful international collaboration in critical areas. Option 3, may add an additional instrument to an already complex program. It would however simplify the situation for researchers compared to Option 2, concentrating dual-use activities in a dedicated fund and therefore remaining visible. A smaller pilot could serve as a testbed, also exploring potential intentional and unintentional consequences. Given the diverse challenges the world faces, including the green and digital transition, it is important that such a fund does not come at the expense of civilian research, but contributes additional funding to the already existing programs. The SNSF recommends exploring already existing measures to contribute to the need of military research, as described in option 1 in the white paper. While acknowledging the potential of option 3 to foster R&I in the military field, it recommends a critical evaluation. The SNSF is strongly concerned that option 2 could significantly weaken the impact and innovativeness of the FP. For all options, it calls to ensure that the principles of ethical research and the underlying values of the ERA are preserved, and necessary frameworks to ensure to prevent that research is misused for military purpose. It is important that researchers are not deterred from engaging in some research areas due to the fear of dual use, and are also able also prevent military use of their research results as much as possible.
Read full response