{"id":47394,"date":"2026-03-09T13:41:51","date_gmt":"2026-03-09T12:41:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.feuga.es\/?p=47394"},"modified":"2026-03-27T09:02:52","modified_gmt":"2026-03-27T08:02:52","slug":"horizon-europe-the-issue-is-no-longer-whether-to-use-ai-but-how-to-control-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.feuga.es\/en\/horizon-europe-the-issue-is-no-longer-whether-to-use-ai-but-how-to-control-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Horizon Europe \u2013 The issue is no longer whether to use AI, but how to control it"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Generative AI in Horizon Europe<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Generative AI is no longer just a stylistic tool. It is becoming an invisible infrastructure within the European funding system<\/strong>, operating at two critical nodes of the Horizon Europe cycle:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Proposal preparation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Evaluation and, increasingly, the scientific process as well.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    As a result, a structural paradox arises: AI can reduce transaction costs in an already congested system, yet at the same time it can strain trust, confidentiality, and scientific integrity if it is not properly regulated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The warning signs are evident. In 2025, Science|Business<\/a> reported that the growing use of generative AI could be behind the rise in applications for certain calls, with success rates dropping to as low as 2%<\/strong> in some cases. In an ecosystem where every percentage point matters, this is far from an insignificant detail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What Horizon Europe officially allows (and requires) in proposals<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The EU Commission has moved from ambiguity to the written rule. The \u201cStandard Briefing\u201d for evaluators (v13.0, 01\/12\/2025), includes the disclaimer found in the application forms (Part B): makes it clear that applicants may use generative AI, but they must review and validate any generated content and, above all, ensure transparency: they must indicate which tools were used and how; provide a list of sources (including those generated by AI); and carefully monitor the risk of plagiarism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Moreover, the text emphasizes that the applicant remains fully responsible for the content, including parts produced by AI. In other words, the Commission is shifting the technical risk of AI use onto the applicant, who must verify the accuracy and validity of AI-generated content and citations, correct errors and inconsistencies, provide a list of sources, including those generated by the tool, and carefully review potential plagiarism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The same document adds an important note aimed at reducing fear or stigma: the use of AI in the draft \u201cshould not be considered cause for penalizing\u201d<\/strong> a proposal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This ties in with the practical warning issued by the Dutch RVO service<\/a>: failure to comply with the programme\u2019s AI guidelines may render a proposal \u201cineligible.\u201d It explicitly states that a standard form (CSA) requires accountability, transparency, a list of sources, and caution regarding plagiarism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    AI also in the evaluation (there is already an investigation by the Ombudsman)<\/strong>

    The debate has escalated because AI is not only being used by applicants. The European Ombudsman opened case     2979\/2025\/MIK (04\/02\/2026)<\/a> to examine the systemic dimension: what rules exist on the use of AI by external evaluators, and how transparent they are towards proposal authors. The trigger was a complaint by a Polish company concerning a proposal submitted to the European Innovation Council (EIC Accelerator), regarding the potential use of AI by evaluators to draft or edit reviews and conduct \u201cbackground research,\u201d with additional concerns about confidentiality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Here, the briefing material is crystal clear. Slide 26 introduces a clearly defined line:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Reviewers:<\/p>\n\n\n\n