The ability to translate scientific discoveries into practical applications is a key aspect of fostering both economic and social progress on a global scale. Yet even today, many academic research results do not reach the market, often due to a lack of support and funding for the early stages of development. The European Research Council’s (ERC) Proof-of-Concept (PoC) program was created to address this challenge, providing a bridge between research and practical innovation through funding that helps researchers explore the commercial and societal potential of their discoveries.
A recent study carried out by Federico Munari and Laura Toschi of the University of Bologna entitled “The impact of public funding on science valorisation: an analysis of the ERC Proof-of-Concept Program” examined the impact of this program on science valorisation and did so using data from individual projects and compared the results obtained by those that received PoC funding with those that, although they applied, were not funded. The objective? To assess whether the program was truly effective in promoting a range of valorisation outcomes, including spin-off creation, licensing agreements, R&D collaborations, and access to subsequent funding.
The study revealed that the PoC program was effective in encouraging early use of scientific discoveries. PoC-funded projects showed a higher likelihood of achieving valorisation results than unfunded projects. PoC funding had a particularly positive impact on commercialization activities, such as spin-off creation and licensing agreements, and academic engagement, such as R&D collaborations and consulting activities. In addition, funded projects demonstrated an increased ability to obtain follow-on funding from both public and private sources. This suggests that PoC not only helps fill the funding gap in the early stages of development but can also act as a catalyst for further investment.
An interesting finding of the study is that the positive effect of PoC is more pronounced for researchers in the early stages of their academic careers. These researchers, who are often less involved in valorisation activities than their more experienced colleagues, seem to benefit more from the support offered by PoC. For researchers in more advanced stages of their careers, on the other hand, the impact of PoC funding was less prominent, probably due to their greater experience and the presence of already established networks of contacts.
The results of this study offer valuable insights for policymakers and university administrators as they clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of initiatives such as PoC in promoting the valorisation of scientific research. In fact, these kinds of initiatives help overcome the so-called technological “valley of death” whereby, in the absence of useful funds to turn scientific discoveries into concrete applications, they fall into oblivion. They also help cultivate entrepreneurial and business skills among researchers, thus fostering a culture of innovation.
The authors, however, emphasize a crucial point: funding for valorisation should complement, not replace, funding for basic research. Indeed, the quality of research remains the essential foundation for the success of any valorisation activity. So, on the one hand it is important to support the practical application of research results, but on the other hand it is equally vital to maintain a solid investment in basic research.
In conclusion, the ERC Proof-of-Concept program has proven to be an effective tool for promoting the valorisation of scientific discoveries by accelerating their transition to practical applications. Munari and Toschi’s study provides a strong evidence base to support this type of policy intervention, suggesting that PoC programs can play a key role in bridging the gap between research and innovation. Further research and evaluation will be needed to fully understand the impact of such programs over the long term, but the current results are promising and encouraging.
