The Portuguese Council of Rectors of Universities (CRUP) welcomes the initiative to undertake a strategic reflection on national research and innovation priorities within the framework of the establishment of AI². The Council further notes positively that the Report adopts a robust methodology based on a participatory and systemic approach, identifying critical decision-making factors that reflect key concerns of the Portuguese National Science, Technology and Innovation System (NSTIS).

Without prejudice to this positive assessment, CRUP considers it essential that the subsequent phases of the process clarify a number of fundamental aspects to ensure that the future architecture of AI² is capable of responding effectively to the challenges facing the national scientific system.

CRUP further notes that, although the Report presents a robust methodology for supporting strategic assessment, it places greater emphasis on methodological architecture than on a broader reflection concerning the public policy choices that should underpin the National Science, Technology and Innovation System. While these policy choices may be further developed at a later stage, the present document would benefit from already setting out a number of national science and innovation policy priorities that should guide this process and that cannot derive solely from the application of an assessment methodology, however sophisticated. In this regard, the Report should initiate a preliminary discussion of the objectives of science policy, the role of the State, institutional autonomy—particularly that of universities—the ways in which universities can strengthen their interaction with the economy, the balance between fundamental and applied research, and the values that should guide the development of the national scientific system.

CRUP also observes that the Report rarely identifies universities as fundamental pillars of the National Science, Technology and Innovation System. This omission is particularly significant given that universities not only carry out the majority of the country’s scientific research, but also provide advanced education and train the highly qualified human resources that sustain the national scientific infrastructure, both within universities themselves and across the wider research and innovation ecosystem. Instead, the Report tends to treat the various actors within the system as equivalent, without clearly distinguishing their respective roles.

Furthermore, the Report is characterised by a predominantly utilitarian vocabulary, centred on concepts such as “value chain”, “efficiency”, “alignment”, “indicators” and “monitoring”, while concepts such as academic freedom, scientific pluralism, scientific curiosity, knowledge creation as a public good, and institutional autonomy are largely absent. It is noteworthy, moreover, that the very term “university” does not appear in the Report.

With regard to the proposed indicators, CRUP notes a clear emphasis on economic impact to the detriment of other dimensions, such as socio-cultural impact, while several indicators appear insufficiently calibrated. For example, the indicators proposed to assess the “Interministerial Governance Model” are overly generic and, in certain cases, lack operational precision, as illustrated by the indicator relating to the number of R&I initiatives and projects contributing to public policies. In addition, key indicators measuring the degree of internationalisation of research appear to be missing.

Finally, CRUP considers that the Report does not sufficiently recognise the value of fundamental research as a public good. Although the Report repeatedly expresses the intention to safeguard it, the proposed methodological framework remains largely structured around a linear value-chain model, with no clearly identifiable indicators or assessment criteria specifically designed for fundamental research.

First, it is essential to ensure that strengthening strategic priorities does not undermine competitive investigator-driven (bottom-up) funding, which is indispensable for fundamental research, the emergence of new fields of knowledge, and the preservation of scientific freedom. Strategic priority setting should serve as a framework for guidance and mobilisation, without limiting the capacity to support emerging scientific opportunities or high-potential research that may not yet fall within predefined priority areas.

Second, CRUP considers it essential that the principles governing the allocation of AI² funding be explicitly defined, including the indicative financial envelope, the respective funding sources, and the balance between institutional funding, competitive funding, strategic priorities, and innovation instruments. Such clarification is crucial to ensure predictability, transparency and confidence in the new institutional framework.

CRUP also considers it important that AI² recognises the disciplinary diversity of the national scientific system. Evaluation criteria should accommodate different forms of scientific excellence and impact—scientific, technological, social, cultural and artistic—in accordance with the epistemological and methodological diversity of the different fields of knowledge, and in line with the orientation of the Horizon Europe Framework Programme, which promotes the integration of all domains of knowledge creation and valorisation across its instruments.

Strengthening national scientific capacity also requires stable structural funding for research units and scientific infrastructures, together with measures that promote the stability of scientific and technical careers. The sustainability of the system cannot rely exclusively on competitive funding; AI² should therefore contribute to reinforcing the institutional capacity of research-performing organisations.

CRUP further considers that the Strategic Assessment Framework should explicitly recognise the role of national scientific infrastructures and services, particularly digital research infrastructures, as structural components of the country’s scientific and technological capacity. It should also acknowledge the cross-cutting role of artificial intelligence in transforming science, innovation and higher education, in alignment with national and European strategies in this field. Likewise, Collaborative Laboratories (CoLABs) should be recognised and further strengthened as unique interfaces between research and industry, playing a strategic role in the co-creation of knowledge, research valorisation and the effective interaction between academia and the business sector, thereby contributing to innovation, competitiveness, and the country’s economic development and diversification. Finally, the governance of the future AI² should ensure transparent decision-making mechanisms based on independent scientific evaluation and institutional participation by representative organisations of the national scientific system, thereby guaranteeing stability, predictability and genuine shared responsibility in defining national priorities.

Strengthening the Position of Universities as Core Institutions of the National Science, Technology and Innovation System

Universities are core institutions of the National Science, Technology and Innovation System, distinguished by their ability to integrate within a single institutional setting fundamental and applied research, advanced education, knowledge valorisation and transfer, internationalisation, technological development, entrepreneurship and innovation. In addition, they manage scientific and technological infrastructures of strategic importance, provide scientific and technical support for the formulation and implementation of public policies, and fulfil an essential cultural and civic mission through the preservation and promotion of cultural heritage, the education of citizens, the promotion of culture, and the production of critical knowledge.

This capacity to combine multiple missions and to create synergies between knowledge production, the education of highly qualified human resources, innovation, and socio-economic development constitutes a defining characteristic of universities and a fundamental pillar of the National Science, Technology and Innovation System, ensuring continuity throughout the knowledge value chain, from the generation of new ideas to their application and societal impact.

Although the Strategic Foresight Report recognises the importance of collaboration among the different actors of the national research and innovation ecosystem, CRUP considers that the final version should more explicitly acknowledge the structural role of universities in delivering the country’s research and innovation priorities. This recognition should reflect their capacity to integrate higher education, science, innovation, economic development, sustainability, territorial cohesion, health, culture and digital transformation policies, thereby contributing to a more coherent and cross-sectoral approach to public policy.

CRUP further considers that such coordination must fully respect the autonomy of higher education institutions, a fundamental principle underpinning academic freedom, institutional diversity and the capacity to respond to scientific and societal challenges. The pursuit of national strategic priorities must therefore remain compatible with preserving a robust and diverse scientific base, ensuring the continuity of fundamental research, advanced education and knowledge renewal. The future AI² should explicitly recognise this distinctive role by establishing a framework that simultaneously promotes strategic orientation and freedom of research, while preventing the core missions of universities from becoming subordinated to short-term objectives or immediate utility-based criteria.

CRUP considers that addressing these issues in the subsequent stages of the process will strengthen the future AI², enhancing its capacity to promote scientific excellence, innovation, international competitiveness and the sustainable development of the Portuguese scientific system.

CRUP, July 6th, 2026