A topic is not simply a description of research the Commission would like to fund. It sits inside a policy objective, an expected outcome and an impact logic. And that changes how a proposal should be built. Take HORIZON-CL2-2027-01-DEMOCRACY-04, on the impact of AI, cyberviolence and deepfakes on equality, democracy and inclusive societies. Or HORIZON-CL2-2027-01-DEMOCRACY-08, on Global Human Rights and EU values. Both sit close to my own registered areas of expertise. The first is particularly revealing: 'AI and fundamental societal questions' are not separate dimensions of the call. They are part of the same problem to be addressed.
Over 25 years working across international organisations, EU institutions and consultancy, I have repeatedly seen the same translation challenge: strong expertise does not automatically become a strong proposal. Excellent research can struggle to explain why it matters beyond the research team. Ambitious social impact can remain disconnected from a credible methodology. AI can appear as a technical component without sufficient attention to accountability, governance or the institutional environment in which it will operate. The problem is often not the quality of the idea. It is the distance between the idea and the logic through which it will be assessed.
I have registered in the European Commission's expert database for potential evaluation assignments, with expertise spanning four key areas: Human Rights, Science Communication, Artificial Intelligence, and EU Research Policy. Structuring 25 years of experience across those fields reinforced something I increasingly believe: successful European projects require translation - from policy priority to research question, from research question to consortium, from technical excellence to credible impact, and from project results to something stakeholders can understand and use.
Over 25 years working across international organisations, EU institutions and consultancy, I have repeatedly seen the same translation challenge: strong expertise does not automatically become a strong proposal. Excellent research can struggle to explain why it matters beyond the research team. Ambitious social impact can remain disconnected from a credible methodology. AI can appear as a technical component without sufficient attention to accountability, governance or the institutional environment in which it will operate. The problem is often not the quality of the idea. It is the distance between the idea and the logic through which it will be assessed.
I have registered in the European Commission's expert database for potential evaluation assignments, with expertise spanning four key areas: Human Rights, Science Communication, Artificial Intelligence, and EU Research Policy. Structuring 25 years of experience across those fields reinforced something I increasingly believe: successful European projects require translation - from policy priority to research question, from research question to consortium, from technical excellence to credible impact, and from project results to something stakeholders can understand and use.
Horizon Europe has the funding. Europe has the expertise. The competitive advantage increasingly lies in connecting the two convincingly. For those currently writing or evaluating European proposals: where do you most often see good ideas lose strength - excellence, impact, implementation, consortium design or communication?