In what ways would the practical meaning of Horizon Europe 2025 be?

It is the follow-up of the 2021-2027 research and innovation framework of the EU. By 2025, look forward to a combination of mission, calls (health, climate, oceans, cities, soil), empowering technologies (AI, micro/nano-fabrication, advanced materials), and impact-oriented instruments that push TRL 3-6 prototypes into plausible adoption scenarios. The most powerful suggestions deliver sharp science with quantifiable benefits to society or industry, not another pilot that will never leave the laboratory.

What will my funding instruments be, and what are the rates?

Three dominate:

-Research and Innovation Actions (RIA): 100% of allowable direct costs and 25% of indirects at the flat rate.

-Innovation Actions (IA): 70% to the majority of beneficiaries (100% to non-profits) + 25% indirects.

-The Support and Coordination Actions (CSA): 100% + 25% indirects.

When you are within the TRL 3-4 range, you are probably in the RIA range; it is IA when you are driving to TRL 5-7.

How big should a 2025 project be?

Typical envelopes:

-RIA: 4-8m EUR in 36-48 months.

-IA: approximately 6-12 million EUR, which may be manufacturing, clinical, or regulatory work.

-CSA: thinner, 1-3 million EUR within the period of 24-36 months.

Stick to the topic; unless you have a reason your design requires it, do not deviate.

How far should we go in advancing TRL?

Attaining devices, platforms, and processes: at level TRL 3-4 (proof of concept in lab) and at level TRL 5-6 (a working prototype in a relevant environment). In data-/AI-intensive initiatives, it is now expected of reviewers to externally validate their models, govern them, and make them interoperable with the real world rather than just having shiny benchmarks.

What is it that an evaluator is looking at besides the template?

Three things, consistently:

-Mastery of words: the explicit deltas of the state of the art and falsifiable hypotheses.

-Impact: not hand-wavy. Preferably quantified benefits (e.g., energy per kg, CO2e per ton, cost/test, time-to-result), and a way to buyers or adopters.

-Discipline of implementation of the lean work plan, risk triggers with owners and budgets, and a consortium in which the role of each partner cannot be ignored.

Which KPIs do you want in 2025 calls?

Choose 5-7 and play them prematurely:

-Technical performance: yield/selectivity, LoD and diagnostics specificity, throughput (number of samples/day or g·L⁻¹·h⁻¹), uptime ≥95%.

-Sustainability: MJ/kg product, kg CO 2e/kg, E-factor, solvent recycle >95%.

-Reliability/reproducibility CV=<10-15% site to site; ≥250 h continuous operation drift=2%.

-Adoption: ≥30% reduced cost of test, or one-half the time to result compared with standard of care.

-Data: FAIR conformity, external validation on independent data, and model drift monitoring recorded.

What are the number and type of partners that we should take?

Competitive teams are generally three or more countries, with all legally required beneficiaries, including at least one excellent method lab, one clinical or industry end-user, one SME in engineering/automation or software, LCA/techno-economics, and data governance. Keep it small; role duplication is costly in Implementation.

In which areas do microfluidics and lab automation take the lead?

Three places:

-Discovery velocity: 10-100x More conditions per week: Screens and droplet/segmented-flow assays. Achieve higher throughputs on a single screen or droplet.

-Process intensification: increased heat/mass transfer as well as control of residence-time will translate to increased selectivity, and reduced energy per kg.

-Translation: prototypes based on a cartridge with inline analytics will decrease the difference between benchtop prototypes and pilot.

What are the emerging traps that we are not supposed to be doing in 2025?

A few that sink good ideas:

-Without a baseline and the system’s boundaries.

-Unviable clinical ambitions, MDR/IVDR, and cybersecurity.

-AI parts where there is no external validation or monitoring of the deployment.

-Excessive expenditures on consortia members who are in the same line of work.

-Risk registers include hazards without triggers, budgets, and owners.

Is MIC able to become a part of the consortium and assist in prototyping and writing?

Yes. MIC typically coordinates the platform engineering work package (chips, rigs, automation), is a co-writer on Implementation and Impact, and provides instrumented prototypes for testing in WP3. We also assist in assembling complementary partners in Europe. Over the history of Horizon Europe, having an active SME such as MIC on a proposal has increased the average success rate by about twice that of official baselines for similar calls.