In this article, our specialist Annelot Staes reflects on the growing hidden costs of Horizon Europe grant writing and the uncomfortable question of when competition for funding starts to outweigh the benefits of the funding itself. Drawing on recent data and daily practice in grant support, she explores how proposal support can either add to the burden—or meaningfully reduce it:

Last month, I read a Nature column¹ that stayed with me. The author described a “point of no return” in grant writing: a moment where the collective cost of competing for funding starts to outweigh the benefits of the funding itself. The calculation behind this idea was striking. By multiplying the number of applications submitted to a specific Horizon Europe call by the average time spent preparing each proposal and an average hourly rate, the author showed that the total resources invested by scientists can exceed the budget available for that call.

Horizon Europe, as the main programme funding EU science, makes this dynamic particularly visible. The programme rewards ambitious collaboration across countries and sectors, something many of us strongly believe in. But turning a strong scientific idea into a credible EU proposal requires much more than scientific excellence alone. It also demands extensive coordination: aligning partner roles, crafting an impact narrative that fits policy language, translating research ideas into deliverables and work packages, and developing a coherent implementation plan with realistic budgets.

To fit into these requirements, for many research teams a pattern keeps repeating. A call is published. A consortium begins to form. Enthusiasm builds. And then, slowly, months of effort disappear into drafts, revisions, partner alignment, and compliance requirements. This work often happens alongside already full schedules. And when the outcome is rejection, the disappointment isn’t only emotional. It can feel like a misallocation of effort. Time spent applying is time not spent on the research that the funding was meant to enable in the first place.

At the same time, dependence on external funding continues to grow. And the more competitive the system becomes, the more effort everyone has to invest. While overall success rates in Horizon Europe are slightly higher than under Horizon 2020 (16.4% compared to 12%)², they remain low overall. Even excellent science can fall short: not because of its scientific quality, but because the proposal narrative doesn’t quite match the call, the consortium lacks balance, or the application becomes a patchwork of individual partner contributions.

Crucially, more time spent on a proposal does not automatically translate into a higher chance of success. This becomes painfully clear in the interim evaluation of the Horizon Europe framework programme (2021–2024)², published last year. It shows that seven out of ten high-quality proposals could not be funded simply due to budget limitations. Numbers like these can be demotivating. Yet opting out of funding calls completely is rarely an option.

It raises an interesting question for anyone working in grant support: do we help reduce this burden, or do we add to it?

Proposal support costs money; that’s a fact. And if support mainly results in more meetings, more documents and more complexity, it becomes part of the inefficiency the Nature column warns about. But if support helps prevent false starts, reduces rework and protects researchers’ time, it can return resources to science, not only financially, but also in terms of focus and energy.

For me, this is the uncomfortable part of doing grant support work: we’re operating inside a system that already asks too much of researchers. That means our role only makes sense if we are actively shrinking the burden, not shifting it, and certainly not expanding it.

In practice, we try to treat every Horizon Europe call like a decision about research time. What can we take off the scientists’ plate without taking ownership away from them? And what can we clarify early enough to prevent months of rework? In line with that, a key part of our support is absorbing the complexity of the funding system. Horizon Europe calls come with specific policy logic, expected impacts, formal requirements and evaluation structure. A frustration we observe often with clients is having to keep all of that in their heads or learning it from scratch every time. Our support can act as a translation layer between excellent research and what evaluators and call texts actually ask for, so teams can focus their limited time where it matters most.

That often means making key decisions earlier and building a proposal in a way that prevents rework. A few interventions tend to make the biggest difference in Horizon Europe calls:

• Early fit checks: before a consortium commits months, clarify whether the idea truly matches the call text, expected impacts, and evaluation priorities. Saying “no” early is sometimes the most valuable advice we can give.
• Evaluation-driven approach: mapping proposal logic explicitly to Excellence, Impact, and Implementation early on, so gaps show up when they are still easy to fix.
• Efficient coordination: reducing fragmentation by providing consortium coordination and giving partners clear guidance on inputs, timelines, and roles, and avoiding late-stage chaos that forces scientists to switch from research mode to crisis mode.

If we do our work well, the outcome isn’t simply a ‘better written’ proposal. It’s a process that is calmer, more intentional, and more respectful of the scarce resources at the heart of science: time and attention. For me (and my colleagues at Hezelburcht), this is an interesting challenge to continue working on this year!

¹ G. Schweiger, 18 December 2025, Point of no returns: researchers are crossing a threshold in the fight for funding, Nature (Career Colum), https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-04060-x

² European Commission, 30 April 2025, Interim Evaluation of the Horizon Europe Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2024), https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/document/download/a3aa9b90-15c0-4ea7-b25e-9f4e29cfa740_en?filename=ec_rtd_he-evaluation-swd.pdf