Ukrainian researchers hope that research-funding reforms will revitalize the innovation sector.Credit: Ukrinform/Shutterstock
Undaunted by the turmoil of the Russian invasion, the European Union has scaled up its presence in the Ukrainian research sector, establishing funding channels and offices in Kyiv. Scientists hope that these moves will drive reforms in Ukraine’s research-funding system and breathe new life into its struggling innovation sector.
Since a Horizon Europe office was opened in Kyiv in late 2023, some norms have been beginning to shift, but the pace is slow because of the ongoing war. In 2024, for the first time, applications for grants at Ukraine’s Ministry of Education and Science took into account European values such as gender balance, open science and the impact of results on society, says Ganna Tolstanova, vice-rector for research at the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. If these developments gain momentum, a new era of Ukrainian research could be in sight.
EU support for Ukrainian research includes three initiatives, launched in December 2023: a Kyiv-based office for Horizon Europe, the EU’s research and innovation (R&I) programme; a commitment to award funding to at least 200 Ukrainian ‘deep-tech’ start-up companies; and a technology and innovation hub in Kyiv. The hub is one of 16 such initiatives that have been opened across central, eastern and southern Europe to boost connections between local businesses, education authorities and researchers.
In addition to the almost €59 million (US$62 million) in funding that Ukrainian research has so far received through Horizon Europe, the EU says it intends to increase its presence in the country to drive wide-ranging cultural changes in the research sector. “Ukraine’s successful integration into the EU R&I ecosystem will require large-scale policy reforms,” a Council of the European Union memorandum announced in 2023.
For Tolstanova, the opportunity for Ukraine to emulate the relative transparency and efficiency of the EU’s research-funding system would would be a game-changer. The Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine has announced plans for a comprehensive review of the country’s research infrastructure, including auditing all research institutions to determine the current state of their research practices.
2024 Research Leaders
These audits have not yet started, and nor has the wider review, owing to the continuing conflict with Russia. As of late 2023, almost 20% of Ukraine’s scientists had left the country1. Power outages occur for several hours each day — often without warning — and at least 35% of the research infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed. According to Peter Berczik, who runs the Department of Physics of Stars and Galaxies at the Main Astronomical Observatory of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NASU) in Kyiv, the entire antenna system of the Radio Astronomy Institute in Ukraine’s second largest city, Kharkiv, was destroyed during the Russian occupation in 2022.
Berczik says Horizon Europe is much more than a fund; its support could help to revitalize Ukrainian R&I by promoting competitiveness and fairness in how grants are allocated. But this will be no small feat. Ukrainians themselves will have to untangle the ageing roots of the research system to make a lasting difference, says Berczik. “Horizon Europe can be a first step, but it will not solve our problems. These are deep and go back more than 30 years.”
Digging up old roots
Berczik’s institution, NASU, is foremost in the minds of Ukrainian researchers who want to see changes in funding allocation. As Ukraine’s premier national research organization, NASU is the target of much criticism, and some scientists see it as antiquated and ineffective.
NASU lacks transparency in how it handles grant applications, and information is sometimes obscured from researchers who might want to apply, one scientist who requested anonymity told Nature Index. The problem, they say, is that funding decisions are made by the directors of individual NASU centres, without involving the wider departments. Information about funding competitions often takes a long time to reach departments, says the scientist, so there is often no time left to submit an application. They note that some of the people who had key roles in allocating funding and managing grant applications have left Ukraine.
Berczik, too, is concerned by what he sees as a lack of accountability and objectivity in funding decisions at NASU, and a stubborn culture of closed networks that makes it difficult for young researchers to progress. NASU did not respond to Nature Index’s requests for comment.
Low salaries for researchers make the funding issue particularly contentious. NASU data show that the gross monthly salaries of PhD staff at NASU institutions amount to around €460, before tax and pension deductions. Researchers have to save their own money to cover the costs of publishing in top research journals. According to Berczik, some of these publications charge around £2,500 (US$3,100) per paper. Funding for scientists who win foreign grants from bilateral projects with EU countries, such as Poland, Lithuania and Austria, pays mainly for research done in the collaborating country. Moreover, the funding excludes accommodation, equipment and food.
Ukraine seeks to resume its role in cancer clinical trials
Some Ukrainian research organizations are improving the competitiveness of the grant-application process, according to Tolstanova. She says the National Research Foundation of Ukraine (NRF) in Kyiv, a state budgetary institution established in 2018, is a good example of this. However, the bureaucracy in Ukraine can be oppressive, Tolstanova adds, which means that any improvements will take time. “There’s a lot of paperwork and restrictions.”
For example, researchers in Ukraine must justify each unit of chemical reagent or other consumables in agreements for research grants from the NRF, says Tolstanova. Any subsequent requirements trigger extra individual requests, creating further administrative burdens. By contrast, Tolstanova cites typical research-procurement processes at EU universities, which require the principal investigator to calculate costs across broad categories, such as equipment, travel expenses and event organization.
That said, the rigour of the process under the supervision of principal investigators at the NRF maximizes accountability for research, says Tolstanova. “I am confident that every penny of the NRF funding spent on science is spent for the intended purpose, and that the pricing is justified.” One advantage of the current system at the NRF is that government officials — rather than senior academics, as is the case at NASU — assess and award grant proposals. This brings more objectivity to the process, says Tolstanova.
