Could Europe bring in top research talent from the US?

Euronews

4 hours ago

US government spending on health research has reached a 10-year low, forcing universities to draw from their savings and hurting companies that sell lab supplies.
Researchers who pursued global health, race, gender identity, climate change and topics related to diversity, equity and inclusion also saw their grants terminated.
This has led to three-quarters of US-based respondents in a Nature poll considering leaving the country, creating an opportunity for the EU to attract researchers from the US.
"We believe that diversity is an asset of humanity and the lifeblood of science. It is one of the most valuable global goods, and it must be protected," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in May in a speech delivered at La Sorbonne University in Paris.
In 2024, the US accounted for 36% of all highly cited researchers, compared to 21% in China and 19% in the EU (including Switzerland and Norway), according to a Bruegel analysis.
While the EU retains a significant portion of its own talent, it also contributes substantially to the global pool of mobile top researchers, particularly to the US.
Among US-based highly cited researchers at Harvard, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia, 7.7% earned their PhD in the EU.
A large portion of the US-based top research workforce also has an international education, with 24% of US-based highly cited researchers being entirely educated abroad.
Family ties, personal life plans and career prospects are among the factors that can persuade researchers to move countries.
However, there is still a large salary gap between US and EU academics.
A top researcher at the University of California can earn between $500,000 (€432,300) and over $1 million (€865,240) annually. In contrast, even the highest-paid professors at top European institutions such as Spain's Complutense University of Madrid typically earn no more than €77,122.
Initiatives such as Choose Europe, which includes a €500 million package aimed at attracting researchers to Europe, alongside efforts to reduce barriers for international students and researchers, could lead to essential changes in the long run.
For instance, Provence-Aix Marseille University reported being "inundated" with applications from US-based researchers after announcing the launch of the three-year Safe Place For Science program, where they expect to raise €15 million and host around 15 researchers.
Yet, between 2022 and 2024, the most attractive destinations among US graduates who wanted to move abroad were the United Kingdom and Canada.
"Life-changing plans take time, and it is too early to expect a massive outflow from the US," the Bruegel analysis stated.
But 30 years of exposure to glyphosate has shattered his dreams and his existence. He was diagnosed five years ago with an intravascular B-cell lymphoma, a rare form of cancer. It has been recognised as an occupational disease.
Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world and also the most controversial. It has been classified as 'probably carcinogenic' by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since 2015. More recent studies from research institutes such as the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) have established a likely link between exposure to the chemical and certain forms of cancer.
Yet, the European Union has extended its authorisation until 2033, relying on studies by EFSA and ECHA, the European authorities for food and chemical safety.
Several environmental and consumer rights organisations challenged the decision before the European Court of Justice last April.
The gap between assessments results from the methodologies used by research institutes and European regulatory agencies, according to Xavier Coumoul, a toxicologist and researcher at Inserm in France. 'When a pesticide manufacturer wants to market a product, the regulatory agencies require the manufacturer to conduct its own tests to prove the product is safe,' he explains.
This process raises many questions surrounding the independence of these surveys.
'EFSA gives little consideration to epidemiological studies and relies considerably on what the industry provides, whereas Inserm or IARC rely much more on the academic literature and monitoring real-life product use.'
Ludovic Maugé, whose life now hangs by a thread, is among those for whom the product's toxicity is undeniable. After undergoing more chemotherapy than is usually permitted, his last hope, he says, is a transplant using his own modified stem cells. It's a vanishingly small chance. 'As my oncologist told me, we can no longer speak of a cure,' he confides.
Since his cancer was recognised as an occupational disease, Ludovic receives a modest social allowance, along with monthly compensation of 180 euros from Bayer-Monsanto — which manufactured the product that poisoned him.
'It's a pittance, but I don't care. What mattered most to me was to see my illness recognised as work-related.'
Despite his daily ordeal, Ludovic, who can no longer work, wants to take his fight further. 'What I want is to spread the message to everyone. Glyphosate destroyed my life — it poisoned me. These products destroy people and destroy nature,' he insists. He is outraged by the EU's decision to renew glyphosate's authorisation.
'When I see politicians reauthorising these products, it makes me furious. It's the pesticide lobby. Unfortunately, we can't do anything against these politicians and Bayer-Monsanto. If I had one thing to say to the European Union, it's this: just ban these products. That's it.'