The Liverpool physicist and researcher points to more attractive careers, mobility between universities and businesses and technology transfer as the EU's priorities.

Europe does not appear to have a shortage problem. scienceIt has leading universities, large research infrastructures, laboratories capable of working at the frontiers of knowledge, and a continuous generation of highly qualified researchers. The crux, according to Carsten Peter Welsch, lies elsewhere: in the ability to connect these elements, retain talent, circulate it between universities and industry and more effectively transform discoveries into technologies, businesses and concrete applicationsIt is from this apparent contradiction that his reasoning on the future of European innovation stems.

An accelerator physicist born and raised in Germany, Welsch studied physics and economics at the Universities of Frankfurt and California at Berkeley, obtaining a doctorate in accelerator physics in 2002. After experiences at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg and at the CERN, in 2007 he founded the QUASAR GroupHe has been at the University of Liverpool since 2008, where he became Full Professor of Physics in 2011 and led the Department of Physics from 2016 to 2023. He now directs the university's Accelerator Science cluster at the Cockcroft Institute of Accelerator Science and Technology.

His work crosses territories in which research and development, fundamental physics and technology transfer inevitably end up meeting. Its activities range from antimatter physics to beam diagnostics, up to the development of accelerator technologies with applications that can extend to medicine. In September 2026, he received the Faraday Cup Award for leadership in the development of the Beam Gas Curtain Monitor, an innovative beam diagnostics system created through collaboration between Liverpool, CERN and the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research.

This is a particularly concrete example of what Peter means when he describes large scientific infrastructures not only as places where fundamental publications and discoveries are produced, but as real innovation platformsTechnologies developed to solve highly specific problems in accelerator physics can find new applications in other sectors, while international laboratories and research centers can become environments in which companies, researchers, and engineers jointly develop tools that will later emerge beyond the scope of fundamental research.

In the interview granted to Innovando.News, the professor from the University of Liverpool takes this reasoning to a continental scale. At its core is the proposal of a “European Innovation Area”, conceived as an operational complement to the European Research Area: a space in which not only knowledge and researchers can circulate with fewer obstacles, but also ideas, technologies, talents and capital can more easily navigate the journey from discovery to demonstration, from the first customer to scale-up.

A decisive part of this transformation, according to Welsch, comes from training of researchers. Through programs such as LIV.DAT and LEVEL HYMN, advocates a model in which the doctorate isn't confined to academia, but includes extended periods in industry, interdisciplinary work, project management, communication, and an understanding of innovation processes. The goal isn't to turn every scientist into an entrepreneur, but to ensure that those who produce knowledge also recognize its potential value and engage with those who can turn it into an application.

The comparison thus extends to some of the technological territories that could define the next decades: artificial intelligence reliable, digital twins, high-performance computing, quantum technologies, autonomous scientific instruments and data applications to health. For Carsten Peter, however, the real opportunity does not necessarily lie in a single “winning” technology, but in their convergence and in the ability to combine data science with deep scientific and engineering knowledge.

A conversation emerges that starts from the particle accelerators, but it quickly comes to a much broader question: how can Europe transform its scientific excellence into greater innovation capacity? If the continent already has talent, infrastructure, and knowledge, the challenge becomes building the connections that are still missing between research, industry, capital and societyFor Welsch, it is precisely in these intermediate steps that a significant part of Europe's scientific and technological competitiveness will be played out in the coming years.

The European Union aims to have one million active researchers in Europe. How far is the continent from achieving this goal, and what are the main obstacles?

This figure requires some context. The European Union estimated that Europe would need to train and employ at least one million new researchers by 2027, particularly outside academia, to achieve its research and innovation investment goals. In 2024, the EU had approximately 2,15 million full-time equivalent researchers, approximately 679.000 more than in 2014, according to the European Commission. For me, therefore, the most important issue is not simply the number of researchers. It is whether Europe has a sufficient number of attractive professional positions, whether their skills match future needs, and whether they can move easily between countries and sectors—i.e., universities, research infrastructures, and industry. It is precisely on this front, in my opinion, that much work remains to be done. In 2024, EU investment in research and development amounted to 2,24 percent of GDP, still well below the long-established 3 percent target. It is also fair to note that Our career structures remain rather fragmented, and mobility between different sectors is still insufficient. Our experience with the LIV.DAT and LIV.INNO centers for doctoral training in data-intensive science leads me to believe that this problem is solvable. We train excellent specialists and combine their in-depth scientific background with skills in data science, project management, communication, networking, and significant industry experience. All this makes a researcher extremely valuable both for a university and for the European economy as a whole.

Europe continues to train excellent scientists, yet many of them pursue their careers elsewhere. What factors are driving this talent drain?

International mobility is very positive for science. I would hate for European researchers to never leave Europe. The problem arises when mobility becomes one-way, as people see clearer future prospects elsewhere. Researchers in the early stages of their careers tend to value the entire career package, including job security, remuneration, access to world-class facilities, the freedom to pursue ambitious ideas, speed of funding decisions, opportunities for partners and families, and the ability to transition from academia to industry without compromising their career. Europe is very strong in several of these areas, but career structures can still be too fragmented and dependent on short-term contracts. The European Union and the United Kingdom are responding to this challenge. The ERA Policy Agenda now explicitly addresses working conditions, mobility, and skills recognition, while the Choose Europe initiative has grown to nearly €1 billion in European support, supported by over a hundred national and regional initiatives. That said, funding alone is not enough. Thank you. From my experience training several generations of doctoral students, I've seen how much confidence in one's career prospects changes when a doctoral student spends a significant period in a company and discovers that their research skills are valuable in many different contexts. I believe we should think less in terms of a rigid choice between an 'academic career' and an 'industrial career' and instead think about a European career in research and innovation, in which people can move between the two. This principle is understood at the highest levels, but it remains very difficult to implement in practice.

You have proposed the creation of a "European Innovation Area." What would distinguish it from the existing European Research Area?

The European Research Area is extremely important. It allows Europe to function more effectively as a single market for research and innovation and improves mobility, research careers, infrastructure, open science, and cooperation between national systems. By European Innovation Area, I mean the operational bridge that is still missing between excellent research and its large-scale adoption. Simply put, the ERA should facilitate the circulation of knowledge and researchers. A European Innovation Area should equally facilitate the transition of ideas, technologies, talent, and investments from discovery to application and, subsequently, to large-scale growth. I believe many of the necessary elements are already in place: Horizon Europe, the European Innovation Council, world-class research infrastructures, the Startup and Scaleup Strategy, and initiatives related to common corporate rules. The European Innovation Act envisaged by the Commission is also explicitly aimed at removing barriers to the commercialization of research, collaboration between industry and academia, funding, talent, and access to infrastructure. In my view, the opportunity now lies in ensuring that all these elements are perceived by researchers, SMEs, and others. or by the investor as parts of a single interconnected system.”

What concrete measures should European institutions adopt to strengthen cooperation between universities, research centers, and industry?

I would suggest funding the interfaces between different actors, rather than focusing primarily on individual institutions. In Liverpool, we learned that collaboration becomes much stronger when people work together long enough to understand each other's problems. In the case of LIV.INNO, this could mean joint doctoral projects, substantial periods spent in industry, intensive research workshops where companies present real-world problems to interdisciplinary teams, industry mentoring, lectures by external experts, and shared training activities. Europe could make these mechanisms much more systematic by offering more joint doctoral programs between universities and industry, two-way staff exchanges, easier access for SMEs to large research infrastructures, shared facilities for technology demonstration, and faster and more consistent approaches to intellectual property and contractual arrangements. This is very close to the Commission's own guidelines on co-creation between industry and academia, which already emphasize the importance of expertise, intermediaries, shared infrastructure, and clear agreements on the ownership and exploitation of results. I find it very encouraging that the same Liverpool's experience is now contributing to several new European proposals. In the Horizon Europe TwinRISE project, Liverpool will lead training and capacity-building activities based explicitly on the LIV.INNO placement model, as well as valorization and sustainability activities. In the EPITA project, led by CERN, Liverpool will coordinate innovation training related to market validation, business models, intellectual property, and early-stage financing. In the new European iRIS project, again led by CERN, we will also use our experience in multidisciplinary training programs. This is the combination that, in my opinion, should be scaled up.

What Europe lacks most is funding, an entrepreneurial culture, attractive career paths, or the ability to transform scientific discoveries into market-ready innovations?

I don't think there's a single specific element missing. The main problem is rather the continuity between the different areas. Europe certainly needs more investment in research and development. We're still some way off the stated 3% target. But increasing funding at the beginning of the value chain won't automatically generate more innovation at the other end. We also need researchers who understand users and markets, strong technology transfer support, early-stage funding for demonstrators, entrepreneurial skills, early customers, and sufficient capital when a successful company begins to scale up. The European Innovation Council is an important part of the solution, as it currently covers a large part of this pathway, from Pathfinder research through Transition to the Accelerator and STEP Scale Up. Particularly relevant for the scientific community is the fact that the EIC Transition 2026 program can now also build on the results obtained from research infrastructure projects. My experience with the CDTs has strengthened my belief that it's not necessary to turn every scientist into an entrepreneur, but that every scientist should be an entrepreneur. A scientist should understand how knowledge can create value and know how to collaborate with those who are capable of taking it further.”

LIV.INNO requires doctoral students to complete six-month internships in industry. What skills and perspectives do researchers gain through this experience that a traditional doctorate might not offer?

A PhD gives a researcher exceptional depth of knowledge. Significant time in industry adds breadth, context, and a real ability to deliver. The most important feature of our model is that the placement takes students outside the core topic of their PhD. They find themselves in a different environment, with different language, new constraints, different data, and different priorities. They must quickly understand a problem, communicate with people who may not share their scientific background, and produce something useful within a defined timeframe. All of this develops confidence, adaptability, project management, and communication skills in a way that is difficult to replicate in the classroom. We saw this very clearly with LIV.DAT, whose successful model was later transferred to LIV.INNO. One student working at OnTrack had to deal with fragmented and incompatible real-world data while developing a tool to improve rail productivity and safety. Another, at IQBlade, worked on text mining, database management, and natural language processing in a completely new context. In a start-up, Another student helped turn NLP research into a concrete product; at IBM, meanwhile, a placement changed a student's perspective on coding, interdisciplinary collaboration, and careers outside of academia. For me, this is innovation training at its most effective: a real problem tackled with a real partner and real responsibility. The experience was enlightening for our students, their supervisors, and our industry partners and is considered a great success.

How can universities collaborate more closely with companies without compromising scientific independence and fundamental research?

I don't see collaboration and independence as opposing concepts. I believe scientific independence is protected by good governance, not by keeping industry at arm's length. The objectives, publication procedures, confidentiality, intellectual property rights, and responsibilities should be clear from the outset. A company can help define an important problem, but it shouldn't determine the scientific conclusion. We've deliberately built safeguards into the CDT model. Periods spent in industry typically cover a different area from the student's core doctoral research, while joint doctorates involve both an academic and an external supervisor. This creates a very productive balance. Students gain exposure to industry's way of thinking, while their fundamental doctoral research retains all the necessary academic rigor. There's an even deeper aspect. Fundamental and applied research often stimulate each other. A challenging industrial problem can raise a new scientific question, while a discovery made without immediate application can become revolutionary years later. CERN and accelerator science have demonstrated this repeatedly in the past. recent decades. For this reason, I would certainly maintain solid, stable, and long-term funding for curiosity-driven research, but I would combine it with greater opportunities, not obligations, so that researchers can engage with users, businesses, and societal challenges.”

Data-intensive science is increasingly impacting fields ranging from medical physics to quantum computing. Which areas could generate the greatest scientific and industrial opportunities in the next thirty years?

Thirty years is a long time, so I would be cautious in pointing to a single winning technology. I believe the greatest opportunities will arise from convergence. One area will be trustworthy AI combined with physics-based modeling and digital twins. This will not replace scientific understanding, but will help accelerate simulation, optimization, and decision-making, while the underlying physics will provide constraints, interpretability, and reliability. TwinRISE is an example of this in the accelerator, healthcare, and energy sectors, including Liverpool's contribution to clinical dose modeling and digital twins for medical applications, which we will develop together with our international partners, such as KIT in Germany. Healthcare will be a huge sector, and new technologies include lower-dose medical imaging, more personalized radiotherapy, earlier diagnosis, and data-driven treatment optimization. I also believe sustainable science and industry will be another major area, where AI will be used to reduce energy and material consumption and environmental impacts, such as We will explore these in the iRIS project. Finally, I see quantum technologies, high-performance computing, and increasingly autonomous scientific instruments as tools we will interact with and regularly benefit from. I believe the common denominator in all of this will be data. However, we will also need qualified experts capable of combining data science with deep knowledge of their field, engineering, responsible AI, and an understanding of real-world user needs. This is precisely why we conceived LIV.INNO as an interdisciplinary center and not simply as a training program in AI or data science.

His work ranges from particle accelerators to antimatter research, from data science to medical physics, including research at CERN. How can large scientific infrastructures contribute more directly to innovation and society?

Large research infrastructures are sometimes described simply as places where fundamental discoveries are made. I believe this view seriously underestimates their role. They are true innovation platforms, training environments, and extremely demanding first customers for new technologies. A good example from my own group is our Beam Gas Curtain technology. It arose from research into new methods for measuring particle beams and evolved into an operational capability for the LHC and the High-Luminosity LHC, with ongoing deployment at CERN. Related gas-beam technologies have subsequently found applications in medical accelerators, where they contribute to improving tumor treatment. This research was recently awarded the Faraday Cup Award, the highest international recognition for research in particle beam instrumentation. I believe we should integrate innovation into research infrastructures from the outset, including industrial co-development, access for SMEs, testbeds, procurement procedures for innovative technologies, researcher exchanges, and open data. and, in particular, structured cross-sector training. I welcome the fact that EIC Transition now explicitly opens a path to the results of research infrastructure projects. This is exactly the kind of connection Europe needs. The actual return of a research infrastructure should ultimately be measured in much broader terms than just scientific publications. It should include new technologies, improved healthcare, sustainable engineering, highly skilled people, new businesses, and public trust in science: all of these are important for science and society.

If European policymakers could implement only three measures in the next five years to retain talent and improve competitiveness, which should they prioritize?

First, I would make research careers truly attractive and transferable across Europe. This means more predictable career paths, excellent working conditions, easier mobility, and recognition of experience gained in another country or in industry. The current ERA and Choose Europe initiatives are very important steps, and what matters now is their concrete implementation. Second, I would complete what I have called the European Innovation Area, creating a more seamless path from discovery to demonstration, to the first customer and large-scale growth. To achieve this, we need easier access to research infrastructure, clearer frameworks for intellectual property and co-development, faster regulatory testing, robust financial instruments like the EIC, and more capital dedicated to scale-up. The STEP Scale Up 2026 instrument was explicitly designed to address the funding gap for large deep tech investment rounds. I clearly see that the approach in my community has changed considerably in this respect, and we are now applying this new approach in our European projects and with our partners. Our international partners. Third, I would make industry-integrated doctoral and research training a standard part of the European education system. My experience with LIV.DAT and LIV.INNO shows that meaningful placements, interdisciplinary teams, joint supervision, and training in communication, innovation, and project management do not undermine scientific excellence; on the contrary, they enhance its value. The Liverpool centers were specifically designed to connect advanced, data-intensive research with academic and industrial careers. If we get these three things right, I am optimistic about our future. I believe Europe already has the science, the infrastructure, and an extraordinary pool of talent. I have no doubt that we can connect them more effectively.”

Quasar Group's LIV.INNO: Driving Innovation Through Data Science

Celebrations and news on the tenth anniversary of the discovery of the Higgs boson

Here are three insights that might interest you:

Pocket-sized accelerators: the technological revolution of micro-X-rays
“Campus2”, a European network to accelerate cooperative Deep-Tech
This is how antimatter travels by road in CERN laboratories