With half-time just passed, the performance of the European Commission's fifth Framework programme of research has been weighed — and found wanting. Scientists, research lobbyists and review panels all complain about its complicated rules and application procedures. The commission itself now appreciates the depth of the concern over the programme, and that it tends to discourage scientists with its need to demonstrate relevance to socio-economic goals (see Nature 398, 1; 1999 ).

What is to be done? Don't start from here, is one response. Over the next few weeks, the commission will be developing the outlines of the sixth Framework programme (FP6), due to start in 2003. Research commissioner Philippe Busquin is intent on basing FP6 on new foundations by interweaving it with the concept of a single 'European research area' (see Nature 405, 873; 2000).

Under FP6, the commission plans to play a more strategic role. Alongside simplifying the rules, concentrating on fewer priorities and decentralizing project funding, more emphasis will be placed on creating equal conditions and opportunities for scientists throughout the European Union. The commitment to improving Europe's human research potential and technological innovation will continue. Administrative issues, such as planning and co-financing joint research infrastructures, are intended to take precedence over direct funding of small, scattered research projects.

But these visions will only materialize if Busquin manages to bring the member states on board. The funding priorities under FP5 — the life sciences, information technology, energy and the environment — deserve further multinational support. If the commission draws back on project funding, the only means of replacing it will be from the member states' budgets. That is why Busquin tirelessly emphasizes the importance of networking and the joint execution of national funding agencies' programmes. But although he has met with positive responses from member states so far, the FP6 plans may put a stop to all that. For legal, financial and perhaps also political reasons, many national funding agencies are not ready to open their programmes to researchers Europe-wide. Moreover, there is insufficient incentive to integrate national funding efforts, despite expressions of goodwill.

A step-by-step approach is essential, therefore. The single European research area is a noble goal, and FP6 is a major opportunity in that direction. But it would be unwise to put too much hope in the goodwill of the member states. Under an improved and streamlined process, project funding should remain a key task for the commission — at least until independent pan-European science agencies are established. Regrettably, all the signs are that that is more than a Framework programme away.