“These are peak years for VUB. We must not allow them to be taken away from us”

When Pieter Ballon began his mandate as Vice-Rector for Research in September 2022, he did not bring prior experience in university governance at VUB. What he did bring, however, was his experience as Director of SMIT, an interdisciplinary research centre of VUB and imec.

“I tried, wherever possible, to incorporate my practical experience into our research policy plan. Its focus was on impact and scaling up: we wanted to move towards fewer but larger research groups. That said, this is not a one-size-fits-all approach. In certain scientific niches, a small, highly specialised research team may be the best option. But overall, there was too much fragmentation. That is why we encouraged the formation of large research groups.”

Why was scaling up necessary?
“The popularity of VUB has grown enormously. We now have more than 22,000 students—double the number compared to 2013. That has put us on the map as a mid-sized university. But that success story also had a downside. Funding for those students only follows later, after they graduate. At VUB, every researcher is also a lecturer. So we had to supervise many more students with the same number of professors and lecturers. That was a huge challenge, especially since we also wanted to keep improving our research performance.”

“We now secure between four and eight ERC grants per year”

How do larger research groups help address that challenge?
“Researchers working together within a larger structure can spread the workload across more people. They share administrative tasks, attract external funding more easily, and provide better supervision for PhD students. By making structures more efficient, research groups were able to increase their output without further increasing individual workloads.”

Three years after the call, the number of research groups has been reduced from 150 to 42 large research groups and 50 regular research groups.
“That process went unexpectedly smoothly. Some research groups already existed, of course, but many others found each other very quickly and formed new groups. Fortunately, we are a compact university: people know one another, across disciplinary boundaries. Many of the large research groups are interdisciplinary, which was also an explicit goal of scaling up. To address today’s societal challenges, you need to approach them from multiple angles and pool knowledge. But it is not enough to simply bring people together and wait with crossed arms until something happens. They need to be substantively relevant to one another and work towards a shared culture.”

Is everyone happy with the scaling-up process?
“There are always things that can be improved, but overall the feedback has been positive. People want to continue working this way and are asking us for support to make it sustainable.”

Are there already visible results?
“Yes—and again, much faster than expected. The creation of a large research group can be accompanied by a specific VUB investment. At the time of the call, we asked groups how much additional output they thought they could generate with those extra resources. On average, they expected research productivity to increase by about a quarter. That seemed very ambitious. Some people thought: they’re promising the moon just to secure the funding.”

And?
“We are clearly on the right track, and some figures are even better than predicted. The number of ERC and Marie Skłodowska-Curie applications, for example, has increased sharply—and successfully. In the past, we secured on average one to two ERC grants per year; now that figure is between four and eight. The number of FWO applications rose by nearly 40 per cent in a single year, and the number of FWO PhD fellowships by 25 per cent. This shows that by supporting people better, we can genuinely boost the research engine.”

Some researchers speak of a ‘mental click’.
“ERC grants are known as the most challenging individual calls. For a long time, many researchers thought: that’s not for us. Now they see VUB colleagues successfully applying for ERC grants and think: maybe I can do that too.”

How do the NSIS networks fit into this story?
“With our research, we want to have societal impact. NSIS networks focus explicitly on societal impact within typical VUB themes. There are now five NSIS networks. This initiative is unique within the Flemish research landscape—something we can truly be proud of.”

You are also proud of the new Charter for Researchers?
“In the new-style research groups, a culture of collaboration becomes even more important. We expect researchers to engage with one another and with science in a responsible way. The Charter serves as a guide, outlining the principles that VUB researchers are expected to uphold.”

Traditionally, such a charter is only taken out when something goes wrong.
“We want to make it a positive story and actively promote it. New staff will already be introduced to it on their very first day at VUB. The document opens with an important statement on academic freedom: researchers are free to decide what they study, which methods they use, and how they communicate about their research. But that academic freedom comes with responsibilities. Researchers must rigorously follow their methodology and submit their conclusions to peer scrutiny. And when communicating as VUB researchers—regardless of the medium—they should not only explain what they have found, but also what they have not found and what the limitations of their research are.”

“Being a bit of a lone wolf is fine—being antisocial is not”

Does the Charter introduce major innovations?
“Principles such as researcher responsibility and fact-checking already existed, but AI adds a whole new dimension. Increasing societal polarisation has also influenced the Charter. Since Covid, scientists’ statements have been placed under a magnifying glass. That makes careful, evidence-based communication all the more important. The new Charter also pays much greater attention to functioning within a research group and to group competences. Toxic behaviour is simply unacceptable. As a leader, you must create a stimulating environment, ensure that others in your group can also conduct good research, and give everyone their moment in the sun. But members of a research group must also be willing to collaborate. Being a bit of a lone wolf is fine—many scientists are by nature—but being antisocial is not.”

The desire to reduce fragmentation is also reflected in the new PhD policy.
“That’s right. There was too much heterogeneity between faculty regulations, which led to inequality—especially as more people engage in interdisciplinary and interfaculty research. The new PhD policy was primarily an exercise in harmonisation. The result is a uniform framework, with a single set of regulations and unified appeal committees. Faculties can still add their own practical guidelines.”

What is new?
“At the start of the PhD, a basic agreement is now drawn up. What will the researcher work on? How much time may be devoted to it? What else is expected of them? These agreements are now much clearer than before. We also place greater emphasis on the annual progress report with the supervisor.”

“PhD students are explicitly asking for personal mentorship”

More paperwork, some may sigh.
“If everything goes well, it may indeed seem like unnecessary effort. But small adjustments along the way help prevent major derailments. And if things do go wrong, it is best to have everything well documented.”

Has #MeToo left its mark?
“That, and the attention to toxic leadership as well. In the run-up to the new PhD policy, we communicated extensively with PhD students—through surveys, among other channels—and with supervisors. That was very instructive. We asked both groups what they expected from one another. Should the relationship be purely professional and content-driven? Is there room for a human bond? Is that bond perhaps even essential? Interestingly, supervisors tended to be more cautious: they preferred to keep things professional. PhD students, on the other hand, clearly expressed a desire for personal mentorship and human support.”

In recent years, a great deal of new infrastructure has been delivered.
“That is largely thanks to my predecessors—we are reaping the benefits of their work. They recognised early on that laboratories, installations and equipment are becoming increasingly important for many research disciplines—not only in the hard sciences. Psychologists, for example, are dreaming of a sleep lab, while urban planners make use of 3D environments.”

Many new core facilities have also been added.
“Indeed. We have added something new: AI-related facilities. For example, we already had a core facility for statistical and data analysis, where researchers from the humanities and social sciences could seek support. We have now added AI for data analysis. That way, not every researcher has to reinvent the wheel.”

AI—is that the next major challenge?
“Without a doubt. AI is coming at us like a wave. We were one of the first universities to introduce regulations for the efficient and safe use of AI and AI platforms, but that was merely a regulatory framework. This is something else entirely. AI will transform research. Imagine scenarios in which research groups consist not only of people, but also of AI bots continuously interacting with those people in the research process. The first steps are only just being taken.”

How do we prepare for that?
“It is a matter of resilience. This is not a single shock, but a succession of shocks, arriving ever more rapidly. That cannot be solved centrally or top-down. Research groups—once again—will have to think this through internally, because the impact differs across research domains. We will be grappling with this for years to come.”

“We urgently need brains from Brussels and from abroad”

Speaking of shocks: what about the budget cuts?
“We still need to be cautious, because at this point (editor’s note: 14 October 2025) we do not yet know what will be decided at federal level. The broad outlines of the Flemish cuts are known. The absence of a Brussels government means that certain funds there remain blocked. But the direction is clear: higher education is under pressure, as is fundamental scientific research. Areas hit particularly hard include everything related to Brussels, metropolitan issues and international engagement.”

Is VUB disproportionately affected?
“Yes—and that is deeply regrettable. This is cutting at the roots of innovation. While Brussels, Flanders and Belgium all claim they want to be innovation-driven economies. To translate research into industrial innovation, that research must first take place. The so-called deep-tech revolution is fuelled by fundamental research—and that requires brains. We cannot rely solely on the students who traditionally find their way to university. We also need the brains of young people from Brussels’ urban communities. Too many of them still do not find their way to university, or fail to reach the finish line. Reduced support will certainly not help. And we also need talent from abroad.”

And those are precisely the areas facing cuts.
“If what is currently being reported in the press goes ahead, I consider that to be short-sighted policy. These are false economies. In the long run, they risk causing serious damage and loss of prosperity.”

What now?
“Fortunately, the recent reforms mean we have already taken steps that will make us more resilient in the face of budget cuts. More steps will be needed, but they will help us absorb the impact more effectively.”

It is still a damper on what has been a peak year.
“We have climbed into the top 20 most high-performing European universities. Compared with universities of a similar size, we are even in the top two or three. People sometimes underestimate how VUB has addressed its weaker points and how strong our performance has become. These are peak years for VUB. We have every reason to be proud of that. And whatever happens, we must not allow that to be taken away from us.”