26th October 2026
The EU wants to turn uncertainty in American science into an opportunity for Europe. The outcome could influence research, technology and economic competitiveness for years to come.
Europe is making a concerted effort to attract scientists from around the world, including researchers working in the United States, as Donald Trump’s administration cuts funding for some research programmes, reduces the size of scientific agencies and changes the priorities governing publicly funded research.
The European Union’s Choose Europe for Science initiative is designed to make the continent a more attractive place for researchers to build their careers. It offers funding opportunities, support for international recruitment and an emphasis on scientific freedom and more secure employment.
The initiative was launched in May 2025, and its funding has since expanded. By January 2026, the European Commission reported that the wider package had grown to almost €900 million, with more than 100 national and regional schemes intended to attract and retain research talent.
This is not simply an attempt to recruit a few distinguished academics. It reflects a growing recognition that scientific expertise is an economic asset, and that countries which attract talented researchers may gain an advantage in developing the next generation of medicines, technologies and industries.
Source: European Commission, Choose Europe for Science
How serious are the American funding cuts?
The disruption in the United States has been substantial.
An investigation published by Nature in January 2026 reported that more than 7,800 research grants had been cancelled or suspended during 2025 at two major federal research funders, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. It also documented a sharp reduction in new grants and a loss of more than 25,000 staff across federal agencies overseeing research.
These figures matter because research funding does not simply pay for laboratory equipment. It supports scientists, technicians, postgraduate students, clinical trials and long-running experiments. When a grant is withdrawn or delayed, a research team can lose staff and expertise that may take years to rebuild.
Some of the proposed cuts were even more dramatic. The administration sought a reduction of about 40% in the National Institutes of Health budget and substantial reductions at the National Science Foundation and NASA's science programmes.
However, the distinction between proposals and actual spending is important. Congress resisted some of the deepest proposed reductions, and courts ordered the reinstatement of thousands of grants. The final financial impact therefore varies between agencies and programmes.
Nevertheless, the uncertainty itself has consequences. Universities and researchers must make decisions about jobs, experiments and future projects without knowing whether funding will continue.
Why Europe sees an opportunity
The United States has traditionally attracted leading researchers through its universities, research laboratories, technology companies and generous funding programmes. For decades, this helped American institutions maintain a strong position in scientific discovery and technological innovation.
Europe is now trying to persuade some of those researchers to move.
The appeal is not necessarily higher salaries. It includes the prospect of stable funding, well-equipped institutions, greater certainty about research priorities and the freedom to pursue scientific questions without abrupt political changes.
There are already indications of interest. In January 2026, the European Commission reported increased applications from researchers based outside Europe for several major research funding programmes. France has also attracted American-based academics through its own recruitment initiative.
But attracting applications is not the same as permanently relocating leading scientists. Europe will need to offer competitive facilities, salaries, research budgets and career prospects if it wants to turn initial interest into lasting gains.
The bigger prize is technological independence
The campaign has implications well beyond universities.
Scientific research provides the foundation for industries ranging from pharmaceuticals and medical technology to artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, energy and defence.
A country that loses research expertise may also lose the businesses, investment and skilled employment that develop around it. Equally, a country that attracts researchers can benefit from new companies, patents, industrial partnerships and products that reach international markets.
This is particularly important as governments reconsider their dependence on foreign technology.
Europe is already investing in satellite communications through programmes such as IRIS², while European companies are developing their own capabilities in telecommunications, computing and artificial intelligence. Attracting scientists and engineers complements those investments by strengthening the people and knowledge needed to build and operate new systems.
The ambition is not to end cooperation with America. Scientific collaboration across national boundaries remains valuable, and American universities continue to possess formidable research capabilities.
Rather, Europe wants to ensure that it has enough expertise of its own to develop important technologies and make independent decisions about their use.
Could Britain and Scotland benefit?
The UK has an opportunity to attract researchers affected by funding uncertainty in America, and the issue has already attracted attention in Parliament.
A House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee report published in 2026 identified American research funding changes as an opportunity for the UK to recruit talent and strengthen its own research base.
British universities have internationally recognised strengths in medicine, life sciences, engineering and artificial intelligence. Scotland also has established research centres and universities that could benefit from attracting experienced researchers and their teams.
However, the UK is outside the European Union. Although it participates in Horizon Europe through an association agreement, British institutions cannot automatically access every EU recruitment scheme on the same terms as institutions in EU member states. National UK funding and recruitment initiatives therefore matter too.
There is also a practical issue for universities already under financial pressure. Recruiting a talented scientist is only worthwhile if the institution can provide the laboratory facilities, support staff and continuing funding required to make the appointment productive.
An opportunity, but not a guaranteed victory
Europe should not assume that a period of American disruption will permanently change the global balance of scientific power.
The United States retains substantial advantages, including leading universities, deep pools of private investment and close connections between research and technology businesses. Its government and Congress can also change funding priorities again.
There is a risk that Europe will attract researchers but fail to retain them if salaries, career structures and research budgets are less competitive. Scientific discoveries must also be translated into successful products and businesses if the economic benefits are to be realised.
Even so, the opportunity is real. Researchers who move their work, students and professional networks to another country can help strengthen its scientific capabilities for many years.
Choose Europe for Science is therefore about more than recruiting academics who are unhappy with conditions in America. It is part of a wider effort to strengthen Europe's economic and technological independence.
The American funding changes have created an opening, but Europe must demonstrate that it can provide the resources and long-term commitment needed to take advantage of it.
If it succeeds, the consequences could be felt well beyond university laboratories, influencing where future technologies are invented, where new businesses grow and which countries benefit most from scientific progress.
Britain’s own science strategy under scrutiny
There is an additional question for Britain. At a time when Europe is trying to attract scientists from the United States and strengthen its technological independence, the UK government has decided to abolish its dedicated Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and distribute its responsibilities across other parts of government.
The government argues that the change will bring science and innovation closer to business, economic growth and the practical use of artificial intelligence. These are worthwhile objectives. Scientific discoveries have limited economic value if they cannot be developed into new products, successful businesses and better public services.
However, there is a potential downside. When responsibility is divided between several departments, it can become harder to establish who is accountable for the overall direction of policy. Research funding, university support, commercial innovation, digital infrastructure and AI adoption are closely connected. Without effective coordination, important decisions could fall between departmental boundaries.
The timing also raises questions about Britain's international ambitions. If funding uncertainty in America creates an opportunity to attract talented researchers, the UK needs a clear strategy for competing with Europe and other countries. That means more than advertising British universities. Researchers need competitive funding, suitable facilities, attractive career prospects and confidence that support will continue.
The reorganisation does not, by itself, demonstrate that Britain is reducing its commitment to science. Its success will depend on whether the new arrangements improve coordination and delivery or weaken the visibility and influence of scientific policy within government.
There is a wider lesson here. Technological independence depends not only on money and equipment, but also on people, research institutions and long-term political commitment. Europe is trying to strengthen all three. Britain will need to demonstrate that changing its departmental structure can achieve the same practical ambition rather than simply rearranging administrative responsibilities.