The article published by Start Magazine on the European attempt to attract researchers leaving the United States presents us with a question of great strategic importance: can Europe really turn the difficulties of the American research system into an opportunity to strengthen its own scientific and technological competitiveness? Although the question is particularly important, because research represents one of the main engines of long-term economic growth, it is also necessary that the debate does not limit itself to the availability of new funding or the opening of extraordinary programs to attract talent. Through the experience of the European Youth Think Tank (EYTT), a non-profit organization that connects young researchers from numerous European countries, promoting interdisciplinary collaborations aimed at international scientific publication, we have had the opportunity to engage with dozens of young scholars from very different academic contexts. Despite the differences between national university systems, disciplines, and professional paths, there are issues that emerge with surprising regularity. In many of the testimonies collected, recurring themes are mentioned: prolonged precariousness, difficulties in building stable career paths, excessive dependence on project funding, limited scientific autonomy for younger researchers, and difficulty accessing truly open and competitive opportunities. For this reason, the issue concerns not only Europe’s ability to attract new researchers but above all its ability to build a research ecosystem capable of retaining them, valuing them, and allowing them to fully develop their innovative potential. If Europe wants to take advantage of the phase of uncertainty affecting the American system, it will also have to address some structural weaknesses that characterize its own research model.
Can Europe take advantage of the flight of researchers from the US? Yes, but reforms beyond incentives are needed
Funding cuts to research promoted by the Trump administration have reopened a question that seemed closed for many years: can the United States lose its role as the main global hub attracting researchers, scientists, and innovators?
The European response was swift. The European Commission, national governments, and universities have announced programs aimed at attracting researchers from the United States, with an obvious goal: to turn an American crisis into an opportunity to strengthen the European research system.
From an economic point of view, this is a logic difficult to contest, considering that research, innovation, and human capital have represented some of the main engines of long-term economic growth for decades. From macroeconomic growth models to the latest analyses on international competitiveness, the conclusion is always the same: countries that invest more in knowledge production tend to be those that accumulate technological, industrial, and strategic advantages. Research cannot be considered a simple item of public expenditure; it must be considered an investment.
Attracting researchers means attracting knowledge. When a country manages to draw scientists, engineers, or high-level researchers, it benefits not only from their work but also from the investments that other university systems and other public budgets have made for their training. And this is why competition for scientific talent represents a particularly strategic form of economic competition; because those who manage to attract qualified human capital gain advantages that go beyond the contribution of the individual researcher: innovation ecosystems are strengthened, opportunities for technology transfer increase, and international collaborations intensify, thus generating new growth opportunities for territories and businesses.
History offers very clear examples. During the twentieth century, the United States greatly benefited from the arrival of European scientists forced to leave the continent, and figures like Albert Einstein contributed not only to American scientific progress but also to strengthening the technological leadership of the United States. The technological superiority that Washington developed during and after World War II was not only the result of economic and military investments but also of the ability to attract some of the best minds on the planet.
Science and geopolitics are indeed closely intertwined: countries that attract researchers tend to accumulate economic and technological advantages, while those that push them away risk losing innovative capacity. However, the real issue is much deeper, and it would be a mistake to think that the European challenge ends with offering some economic incentives or extraordinary recruitment programs.
Attracting is not enough, retention is necessary
For years, the European debate focused on brain drain, while today we risk making the opposite mistake: focusing exclusively on the possibility of attracting American researchers without addressing the structural weaknesses that continue to push European researchers to leave the continent.
International mobility is a value because it allows the circulation of ideas and skills, promoting research quality and accelerating innovation. However, mobility should be a choice, not a necessity. A research system works when a researcher decides to move to broaden their professional experiences, not when the transfer is imposed by precariousness or lack of prospects. If Europe wants to become truly attractive, it must therefore also address the internal problems that characterize a significant part of its university systems.
In this regard, Italy represents an interesting example: on one hand, there is the need to ensure continuity to departments and to value researchers who have contributed to research and teaching activities for years, and on the other hand, there is the need to keep the system open and to promote academic mobility.
These are two equally legitimate objectives, but when trying to pursue them simultaneously and through the same tools, a problem can arise. Although many recruitment procedures are formally open to all candidates, within the academic community there is a widespread perception that some selections also respond to the need to ensure continuity for professionals already present in the structures. This is not to question the quality of the winners or the fairness of the committees, but to recognize that two legitimate but different needs coexist: that of valuing existing skills and that of attracting new talent, which require the use of distinct tools. A portion of positions could be explicitly reserved for internal progression, for example, thus allowing universities to value already trained skills and build more stable career paths.
At the same time, a significant share should be allocated to recruiting external candidates, both Italian and international, with the aim of promoting academic mobility and strengthening the system’s credibility. A researcher coming from the United States, the United Kingdom, or Asia will hardly choose to move to a context where they perceive limited access possibilities or low predictability of career opportunities.
The problem of precariousness and hierarchical dependence
The ability to attract talent also depends on the autonomy that the system can guarantee to its researchers. In many European contexts, a significant part of academic careers continues to be characterized by temporary contracts, research grants, and precarious positions, producing not only economic instability but also a limitation of scientific autonomy.
When professional continuity depends on available funds or the renewal of projects managed by senior figures, it becomes difficult for young researchers to build autonomous research paths, thus creating a dependence that can discourage experimentation with innovative scientific paths. Yet, innovation often arises precisely from the ability to explore original and unconventional approaches. For this reason, guaranteeing greater autonomy to young researchers should be considered an essential component of European competitiveness.
Too many calls, too little time for research
Another critical issue concerns the growing weight of competitive project design. European programs have played a fundamental role in supporting continental research but also have often invisible costs. Preparing an application requires months of work, partnership building, administrative activities, and increasingly specialized skills. However, many proposals are not then funded.
The result is that a significant portion of researchers’ time is absorbed by bureaucratic activities rather than research itself, generating the risk of progressively turning researchers and professors into project managers and administrators.
Besides funding, time is also a limited resource. For this reason, it would be appropriate to complement competitive programs with more stable and structural tools capable of ensuring continuity to scientific activities.
Scientific freedom as a competitive advantage
There is also an element often underestimated in the economic debate: research freedom.
When talking about attracting talent, the focus tends to be on salaries and funding, but history shows that knowledge production also depends on the intellectual autonomy granted to researchers.
In recent years, tensions between politics and research have multiplied in several countries. In the United States, some decisions of the Trump administration raised concerns within the scientific community, while in Argentina, the government of Javier Milei has promoted a drastic reduction of resources allocated to universities and research institutions.
The problem is not only about funding. It concerns how politics views knowledge.
It is important to remember that the great transformations that have changed the course of history were not mainly generated by politics but by the ability to produce new scientific and technological knowledge.
From the scientific revolution to modern medicine, from electrification to computing, up to artificial intelligence, economic and social progress has been driven above all by innovation. It is then up to politics to create solid institutions, establish clear rules, and promote development.
But when politics sees research as an ideological adversary or as a sector to be subordinated to the conveniences of the moment, it risks weakening one of the main engines of human progress.
In this sense, Europe has a competitive advantage often underestimated. Despite all its bureaucratic limits, it continues to offer a context where academic freedom, pluralism of ideas, and research autonomy generally enjoy strong protection; for many scholars, the possibility of working in an environment that protects free thought can represent an attraction factor no less important than salary levels.
Invest more and invest better
Europe also shows strong differences in levels of investment in research and development.
Some countries invest significant shares of GDP, while others lag far behind, creating academic systems characterized by strong internal disparities and increasing dependence on large European programs. For this reason, strengthening community programs should be accompanied by strengthening national systems.
The goal should not only be funding individual excellences but building robust and widespread knowledge ecosystems. In this perspective, alongside public funding, there is also still little developed space for private capital contributions.
In many European countries, large companies and investors finance sports and cultural activities obtaining important reputational returns. The same principle could be applied more intensively to funding research and universities, provided scientific autonomy and academic independence are guaranteed.
A challenge concerning Europe’s future
American cuts to research have opened a window of opportunity that a few years ago would have seemed unthinkable. But attracting researchers will not be enough.
More substantial investments, greater scientific autonomy, less precariousness, more transparency in career paths, less bureaucracy, and a long-term strategy capable of valuing human capital are needed.
The real question is not whether Europe will manage to attract some researchers from the United States. The real question is whether it will manage to build a scientific ecosystem capable of making them stay.
Because in the future, competition between economies will increasingly be a competition for knowledge. And those who know how to attract, retain, and value talent will have an advantage that no trade or industrial policy can compensate.
