EU, UK eye weary US scientists with €500M plan
French President Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen announced Monday an initiative aimed at attracting US researchers fleeing funding cuts and restrictions on academic freedom under US President Donald Trump. The plan will see half a billion euros in funding between 2025 and 2027.
'The role of science in today's world is questioned. The investment in fundamental, free and open research is questioned. What a gigantic miscalculation,' von der Leyen said.
The announcement followed one made by France's flagship scientific research center Sunday. The president of the French National Center for Scientific Research, Antoine Petit, said the program was designed to attract foreign scientists whose work is under threat, as well as French researchers who 'don't want to live and raise their children in Trump's United States.'
The UK is also considering a similar scheme, which will be supported by £50 million in government funding, the Financial Times reported.
Europe is keen to lure American researchers. Petit said France's strong welfare state, as well as the lower cost of education and health care, would make up for any pay gap with the US.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
22 minutes ago
- Axios
Democrats more likely than Republicans to boycott brands, new survey
Why it matters: These murky expectations highlight the complicated environment businesses are currently operating in. What they're saying: "Businesses need to understand how their brand aligns to current issues and the values that matter to their customer base," says Mallory Newall, vice president at Ipsos. "Brands cannot please everyone, and wading into the political fray does not come without risk. It needs to be done in a strategic way. However, there are potential upsides if companies have a clear understanding of who they're talking to and who their customers are. Those who act inauthentically will lose ground in this environment," she added. State of play: There's a disconnect in what consumers say and what they do. 53% of Americans say they are less likely to buy from a company that takes a stance they don't agree with, but only 30% actually do. Between the lines: A company's political or social stances influence Democrats more than Republicans, per the survey. Democrats are more likely to boycott (40%) than Republicans (24%), but they are also 2x more likely to go out of their way to support a brand that aligns with their values. Target is the latest American corporation to grapple with these boycotts, following its retreat from diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Of note: Boycotting is a luxury afforded to those with disposable income, per the survey. Households with incomes of $100k and above are 50% more likely to stop buying from a company they disagree with than those households making $50k and below. What to watch: 67% of Democrats say they are closely tracking how companies respond to pending Supreme Court decisions, compared to 52% of Republicans. There is more appetite across party lines for business commentary on economic issues — like inflation and trade policies — than other policy issues. The bottom line: "The data suggest that Democratic consumers are much more likely to actually follow through on the threat to withhold or reduce spending when they disagree with brands during this era of complete GOP control," says Matt House, managing partner at CLYDE.
Axios
23 minutes ago
- Axios
Exclusive: Dems press Trump admin. for response to China-backed cyberattacks
A group of Democratic lawmakers are pressing the Trump administration to clarify who is leading the government's efforts to eradicate China-backed hackers from U.S. critical infrastructure and telecom networks. Why it matters: Roughly 1,000 people have already left the nation's top cyber agency this year through voluntary buyouts and other workforce cuts. Those cuts could create dangerous weaknesses in the nation's cyber defenses, the lawmakers argue in a letter exclusively shared with Axios. Zoom in: Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) sent a letter today to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard demanding more clarity on who is leading the response against two major China-backed cyberattacks uncovered during the Biden administration. Democratic Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi, Kathy Castor, Ro Khanna, Haley Stevens, Shontel Brown and Jill Tokuda joined Torres as signatories. The lawmakers are also requesting Noem and Gabbard provide an update on any ongoing investigations into both the Volt Typhoon attacks on U.S. critical infrastructure and the Salt Typhoon campaign to surveil high-profile individuals' cell phones. The group is also asking for an update on how proposed budget cuts and the recent workforce reductions at CISA will impact those investigations. What they're saying: "This is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of grave consequence for the security of America both at home and abroad," the lawmakers write. "We owe it to the American people to protect them from the specter of a cyber 9/11 at the hands of our most formidable foreign adversary." Threat level: For years, top American officials have been warning about increasing cyber threats from China. China-backed Volt Typhoon has been prepositioning in critical infrastructure — such as water utilities, power plants and railways — for at least five years, according to congressional testimony. Salt Typhoon, another Chinese government-backed group, was caught hacking into several high-profile politicians' phones last year, including President Trump's. "Somewhere, Xi Jinping is smiling at America's insistence on degrading its own cyber capabilities," the lawmakers write.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Sides With Straight Woman on 'Reverse Discrimination'
The Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to file lawsuits over 'reverse discrimination.' The nation's highest judiciary sided with an Ohio woman who claimed that she had been passed over for a job and was subsequently demoted because she was straight. Marlean Ames, a 20-year employee at the Ohio Department of Youth Services, claimed that the promotion and the job she previously held were both given to LGBTQ people. Ames had previously lost her case in trial court and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. In siding with Ames, the court unanimously struck down a standard that had previously required individuals identifying as part of a majority group—such as being white, male, or heterosexual—to face a higher bar in proving discrimination. The ruling will affect cases in 20 states and the District of Columbia. The 6th Circuit was one of the courts that had tasked people like Ames with showing 'background circumstances' as proof, such as an internal pattern of discrimination against her at her organization. Ames did not provide any circumstances to the appeals court. In its opinion, the Supreme Court decided that the 6th Circuit's 'background circumstances' requirement 'cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court's precedents,' since the statute's 'disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.' Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal for American employers to discriminate against employees or potential employees on the basis of their 'race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.' 'The provision focuses on individuals rather than groups, barring discrimination against 'any individual' because of protected characteristics,' the court wrote. 'Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.' In its opinion, the nation's highest judiciary vacated the lower court's ruling, remanding the case to be re-deliberated under the new standard. In 2019, Ames had applied to be bureau chief of the Ohio agency. She was interviewed by two supervisors who did not hire her for it. Two more applicants for the role were also turned away. Eight months later, Ames claimed that one of the supervisors had hired a lesbian woman she knew personally to fill the role. Ames was later removed from her post as program administrator and given the option of being demoted to executive secretary or leave the agency altogether. She chose the demotion, and was replaced by a gay man. Ames claimed that she had been discriminated against as both of the hiring supervisors were lesbian women. This story has been updated.
