OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Wissenschaftsgemeinschaft Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz e. V.

Leibniz-Gemeinschaft

Die Leibniz-Gemeinschaft Die Leibniz-Gemeinschaft verbindet 96 selbständige Forschungseinrichtungen. Ihre Ausrichtung reicht von den Natur-, Ingenieur- und Umweltwissenschaften über die Wirtschafts-, Raum- und Sozialwissenschaften bis zu den Geisteswissenschaften. Leibniz-Institute widmen sich gesellschaftlich, ökonomisch und ökologisch relevanten Fragen. Sie betreiben erkenntnis- und anwendungsorientierte Grundlagenforschung, unterhalten wissenschaftliche Infrastrukturen und bieten forschungsbasierte Dienstleistungen an. Die Leibniz-Gemeinschaft setzt Schwerpunkte im Wissenstransfer. Sie berät und informiert Politik, Wissenschaft, Wirtschaft und Öffentlichkeit. Leibniz-Institute pflegen enge Kooperationen mit den Hochschulen, der Industrie und anderen Partnern im In- und Ausland. Sie unterliegen einem transparenten und unabhängigen Begutachtungsverfahren. Aufgrund ihrer gesamtstaatlichen Bedeutung fördern Bund und Länder die 96 Institute der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft, an (...)

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Christian Ehler (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

13 Nov 2025 · FP10/Exchange on research policy with visitors group of research managers

Meeting with Christian Ehler (Member of the European Parliament)

10 Sept 2025 · Research policy exchange with visitor group of researchers

Meeting with Christian Ehler (Member of the European Parliament) and Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher Forschungszentren e.V. and

4 Jun 2025 · European science policy

Response to EU Start-up and Scale-up Strategy

17 Mar 2025

Die Leibniz-Gemeinschaft erkennt erhebliche Herausforderungen für Start-ups in Europa, insbesondere im Hinblick auf den Zugang zu Finanzmitteln, die Verfügbarkeit von Risikokapital und die kulturellen sowie organisatorischen Hürden bei der Unternehmensskalierung. Im Vergleich zu den USA und China mangelt es an Risikokapital, und öffentlich geförderte Programme wie EXIST erreichen nicht alle notwendigen Entwicklungsphasen großer Unternehmen. Start-ups haben oft Schwierigkeiten, Finanzierungen für ihre Marktübergangsphasen zu finden, vor allem, weil Investoren häufig auf etabliertes geistiges Eigentum (IP) setzen, was besonders für Open Science Start-ups problematisch ist. Hinzukommt, dass die Entwicklung innovativer Produkte Zeit benötigt, die Planungsunsicherheiten verursachen kann. Der Technologietransfer wird durch bürokratische Hindernisse und uneinheitliche Vorschriften innerhalb der EU verlangsamt. Unterschiedliche regulatorische Anforderungen erschweren den Marktzugang, während langwierige bureaucratische Prozesse den Zugang zu öffentlichen Förderprogrammen komplizieren. Die Fragmentierung des europäischen Binnenmarktes verhindert, dass Start-ups leicht in andere EU-Länder expandieren können. Kooperationen zwischen großen Firmen und Start-ups sind oft zurückhaltend, was die Integration neuer Technologien erschwert. Dabei fehlt eine einheitliche Anerkennung von Qualifikationen in der EU, was die Einstellung internationaler Talente erschwert und den intensiven Wettbewerb um Fachkräfte verschärft. Abwanderung von qualifizierten Fachkräften stellt ebenfalls eine Herausforderung dar. Die Zugänglichkeit zu spezialisierter Forschungsinfrastruktur, wie High-Tech-Laboren, ist für Start-ups nicht optimal organisiert, was den Austausch und Transfer von Wissen bremst. Besonders in der Biotechnologie, die hohe Kapitalanforderungen hat, sind Unternehmen stark von lokalen Bedingungen für Risikokapital abhängig. Um die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit von Start-ups zu verbessern, sind umfassende Maßnahmen erforderlich. Eine EU-weite Harmonisierung der regulatorischen Bedingungen würde die internationale Expansion erleichtern. Der Ausbau von Forschungstransferprogrammen zwischen Universitäten und Start-ups sowie die Einführung eines EU-weiten Start-up-Visums könnten die Rekrutierung internationaler Fachkräfte und den Wissensaustausch verbessern. Die Reduzierung von Kosten und Komplexität im Patentschutz ist ebenso notwendig wie eine verstärkte öffentlich-private Zusammenarbeit zur Vermarktung von Forschungsergebnissen. Die Verbesserung von Test- und Demonstrationslaboren und des Zugangs zu Pilotanlagen könnte die Entwicklung neuer Technologien beschleunigen. Ein einheitliches digitales Portal könnte bürokratische Prozesse vereinfachen. Die Förderung von Netzwerken zwischen etablierten Unternehmen und Start-ups durch gezielte Programme könnte den Technologietransfer beschleunigen. Letztlich ist die Schaffung finanzieller Anreize durch EU-weite Wagniskapitalfonds und steuerliche Vorteile für Investoren wichtig, um die finanzielle Unterstützung anwachsender Start-ups zu sichern. Verbesserungen im europäischen Börsenumfeld könnten über Anreize für Börsengänge weitere Kapitalquellen eröffnen und den Kapitalmarkt attraktiver gestalten. Dies würde Start-ups dabei helfen, ihre Position im internationalen Wettbewerb zu stärken und die europaweite Expansion zu fördern.
Read full response

Meeting with Christian Ehler (Member of the European Parliament)

23 Sept 2024 · European science policy

Meeting with Iliana Ivanova (Commissioner) and

29 May 2024 · Meeting with the Presidents of the G6 Research Network. G6 president's shared their views for the future of European Research.

Meeting with Christian Ehler (Member of the European Parliament)

14 May 2024 · Science and research policy

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

30 Apr 2024

The Leibniz Association supports Option 1 as preferred approach due to the reasons outlined below. The Leibniz Association endorses Option 1 as the preferable choice for researchers and research organizations due to its clear, continuous, and reliable structure that maintains the appeal of the EU research funding programme. In contrast, Option 2 introduces complexities such as stringent security clearances and additional eligibility criteria, potentially diminishing the programme's accessibility. Option 3, while clear, would necessitate additional governance structures and complex rules, further complicating the funding infrastructure and potentially reducing the EU's attractiveness as a premier research destination. These complexities, highlighted in the white paper itself, could hinder the overall accessibility of the programme and could detract from the attractiveness of the EU as a leading research hub. In keeping civil and defence research separate, Option 1 ensures the full benefits of international cooperation. In contrast, Option 2, which dilutes the exclusive focus on civil research, may restrict global collaboration and exclude third-country researchers from projects. Alone the practical challenges of facilitating cooperation between civil and defence research entities could stifle the openness and collaborative spirit that defines civil research and the very understanding of science in Europe. Such constraints on academic freedom could have a significant negative impact on the EU's global reputation. Consequently, restricting international cooperation could not only diminish the quality and excellence of EU-funded research but also negatively impact the EUs global competitiveness and the attractiveness of the European Research Area (ERA). Under Option 1 the Framework Programme can continue to maximize career opportunities for researchers through international cooperation, mobility and by ensuring that the research conducted leads to scientific publications. Option 2, with its focus on security, could impose publication restrictions, adversely affecting researchers career prospects and the diminishing of the overall appeal of EU funding for those striving towards an academic career. Merging civil and defence research can have a substantial negative impact on private and academic actors in terms of public trust. The intertwining of financial sources and higher security demands could lead to transparency issues, affecting the trust and ratings of private actors as well as the public perception of universities. The danger of normalizing military research can equally undermine trust in science and academia. Option 2 further raises concerns about the possibility of funds designated for research to be redirected more easily towards defence (research) purposes, thereby reducing the budget available for civil research related areas. The focus on applied research under Option 2 would also mean less attention to basic research, which is however essential for ground breaking discoveries. This potential shift in funding priorities could undermine the programmes integrity and its commitment to diverse scientific inquiry. Overall, the focus of Option 2 on security and control could fundamentally change the nature of the future Framework Programme. It risks undermining openness, inclusivity, and the programmes essential role in fostering a collaborative and innovative research environment in Europe by creating substantial loopholes that could divert research funding to other objectives. This must be rigorously avoided to maintain the integrity and objectives of the programme. In conclusion, while each option presents its own set of challenges and ambiguities, especially concerning the practical implementation of dual-use research, the Leibniz Association strongly supports Option 1 for its clarity and alignment with the EU's values of openness and collaboration.
Read full response

Response to Enhancing research security in Europe

18 Dec 2023

In our view, the guiding principles and measures described in the call for evidence seem to be appropriate and comprehensive. In addition, we would like to suggest the following points, which future EU recommendations should also take into account: In addition to the proposed country-agnostic approach, researchers should be provided more knowledge on country-specific challenges, political / economic realities and circumstances. Therefore, the country-agnostic approach should be complemented by country-specific information. A coherent approach is important in order to prevent the emergence of first movers disadvantages for those who adhere to the rules in particular the soft rules that do not represent legal obligations. The EU should consider supporting independent expert services (similar to the Netherlands approach) that would quickly and professionally provide background information to researchers and administrators on individual cases without drawing red lines, and without sharing this information with outsiders.
Read full response

Meeting with Marc Lemaitre (Director-General Research and Innovation)

15 Sept 2023 · Exchange views on the future of European Research.

Response to Pact for Research and Innovation in Europe

12 May 2021

One of the lessons that can be drawn from the COVID-19 pandemic is the need for more cooperation and coordination on the regional, national and European level. It also shows the importance of R&I investment. The ERA pact for R&I must translate into a genuine ownership by all member states who should show their political determination by meeting the 3% Barcelona target. It should also put an emphasis on the EUs science base and, in particular, on European monitoring systems that would help to better cope with future pandemics. EU and member states must strive for still more and better coordination of national and EU funding programmes and of the development of existing and new EU research infrastructures. Here, a better alignment of national and EU RI roadmaps is necessary. With regard to joint programming, there is a need for more transparency as to the the origin, nature and target groups of the European Partnerships. As to missions, they must become one of the core elements of the new ERA. Thus, the pact must address the issues of their governance and coordination and show commitment from all decision makers on regional, national and EU level to make them a success story of the ERA. An attractive ERA needs effective framework conditions for mobility and brain circulation through policy reforms and support tools. The existing principles have to be updated to fit new transformative changes, e.g. by aligning standards for the recruitment and assessment of researchers. Member states must commit to the implementation of Charter and Code, new measures for the achievement of gender equality must be implemented and applied to ALL ERA stakeholders (gender equality plan). EU legislation and regulation related to R&I must be re-visited in order to create the framework conditions for excellent research without hampering scientific collaboration while reflecting European standards and values (e.g. related to GMO or the Nagoya Protocol, or the free circulation of researchers and knowledge). This is also valid with respect to international cooperation. The pact must be characterized by its openness to the world and allow the EU to cooperate more easily on challenges of a global nature without unnecessary bureaucratic burden. At the same time, the EU has to protect its interests in fields of strategic importance. The exclusion of countries from cooperation with EU partners in specific areas should be subject to a transparent decision making process and prior consultation with EU member states. The success of the new ERA will also depend on the capacity of the EU and the member states to promote the relevance and visibility of R&I to society. This can be done via e.g. the Marie S. Curie Researchers‘ Night, Science meets Parliament (JRC), and enhanced communication strategies within EU R&I projects. Also, national initiatives of ministries or research organisations such as the the initiative of the Leibniz Association „book a scientist“ (https://www.leibniz-gemeinschaft.de/ueber-uns/neues/forschungsnachrichten/forschungsnachrichten-single/newsdetails/book-a-scientist-1.html) can serve as best-practice examples. Via the ERA pact, member states together with the research community, therefore, should commit to a broader communication strategy that addresses research results but also strategic flagships such as the missions, European Partnerships, ESFRI and the Charter and Code for researchers. If the ERA stakeholders and society at large are to have some sense of ownership of the future ERA high priority must be given to the definition of its key principles. Values such as freedom of research, good scientific practice, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, free circulation of knowledge, and respect for human rights and common ethical standards must be the underlying principles of any action and cooperation of ERA Member States and their international partners.
Read full response

Meeting with Robert Schröder (Cabinet of Commissioner Carlos Moedas)

11 Jun 2018 · "Leibniz" Science magazine - science policy section

Meeting with Carlos Moedas (Commissioner) and

23 Jan 2018 · Future of EU Research and Innovation

Meeting with Carlos Moedas (Commissioner) and

16 Sept 2016 · European innovation strategy