Reading time: 3 minutes

With 112 applications from 21 universities in 2024 and a growing 2025 budget, HU-rizon shows that scientific excellence can thrive without political filters. Our latest paper compares HU-rizon and Horizon Europe as the next EU budget cycle approaches.

On December 8, Mathias Corvinus Collegium hosted a thought-provoking discussion on the emergence of Hungary’s Hu-rizon research funding program and its implications for the future of European science. The event explored whether national frameworks can preserve scientific neutrality while fostering international excellence, especially in a climate where research funding is increasingly politicized.

Opening Remarks were delivered by Rodrigo Ballester, Head of the Center for European Studies, who highlighted the context behind Hu-rizon’s creation: Hungary’s exclusion from Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe in late 2023. Despite operating with a fraction of Horizon Europe’s budget, Hu-rizon has quickly positioned itself as a credible partner in high-level collaborations. Its distinctive features, including rejecting ideological litmus tests such as mandatory DEI frameworks or gender clauses, sets it apart in Europe’s research landscape.

The panel discussion, moderated by Stephen Sholl, Head of International Partnerships at MCC, featured Dr. Katalin Deme, senior researcher at MCC Brussels, and Damille Devenyi, researcher at the Center for European Studies, who examined the deeper dynamics shaping research funding:

  • Weaponized Language & Ideological Drift: Dr. Deme emphasized how terminology becomes a tool for political steering, noting that paradigm shifts often begin with subtle language changes. She warned that even small ideological distortions in funding priorities can expand rapidly if unchecked.
  • Merit vs. Ideology: Both speakers criticized Horizon Europe’s tendency to favor projects aligned with ideological expectations, such as gender mainstreaming, while excluding certain research topics entirely. This creates a system where success depends on deploying the “right” partners and keywords, signaling what is valued and what is excluded.
  • Academic Freedom Under Pressure: The discussion revealed that financial dependence forces institutions to compromise, with projects sometimes rejected solely for failing to integrate specific EU-approved elements. Even in countries with strong academic traditions, opposing mainstream expectations can be risky.
  • Hu-rizon’s Sustainability & Neutrality: Mr. Devenyi shared that in 2024, Hu-rizon received 112 applications from 21 universities, accepting 30. With an increased budget for 2025, the program aims to deliver concrete research results while maintaining transparency through international partnerships and public roadshows. Both panelists agreed that actual research output is the strongest safeguard against politicization.

The panel concluded that academia should influence politics, not the other way around, and warned against extremes on both sides, underscoring a central question: Can Hungary’s alternative model inspire a broader rethinking of research funding priorities across Europe? As the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2027-2034 approaches, this debate is more relevant than ever.