...
Speaking at the European Science Diplomacy Conference in Copenhagen, she did not elaborate on exactly how the US was wrecking its reputation.
...
The next programme, which starts in 2028, will also be more focused on European defence technology and industrial strength, raising questions over how welcome non-European partners will be, particularly in sensitive projects."
I am inclined to agree with her conclusion. But this is a political statement by a European diplomat selling her programme and asking for funds.
We can find better sources for documenting what’s happening. There is even nascent progress in measuring the harm.
> the US government has cut scientific grants to academics working on diversity-related topics, halted biomedical grants to international partners, and demanded universities shut down academic units that “belittle” conservative ideas, or risk losing federal funding.
> These efforts have in some cases been overturned by courts or faced opposition from universities. And huge proposed cuts in federal research funding may be blunted by Congress. But still, the reputational damage has led Europe to attempt a poaching spree of disillusioned US academics.
It doesn’t seem extremely likely at the moment but I also don’t think it’s super unlikely.
They were calling us fools when we were inventing AI in 2015 too.
I think what we are doing today is horribly executed, but likely motivated by a farsightedness Europe can’t believe is there since we are all just dumb fools. (Collapse of globalism as a sustainable system)
were they? You invented AI in 2015? My Nokia had predictive text over 20 years ago
> but likely motivated by a farsightedness
Oh you're thinking two quarters ahead now?
I would just leave it at that.
"Speaking at the European Science Diplomacy Conference in Copenhagen, she did not elaborate on exactly how the US was wrecking its reputation."
For someone in the top position of EU's research leadership, she sure does seem to suck at explaining and arguing her statements, which should be the no. 1 skill of academics in research.
I can't really think of many notable things to come out of Europe as of late... besides maybe covid vaccines but its hard to really say that when 90% of the wikipedia page for the "creators" is about research and contributions that they did (and could really only do) in the US.
This same sentiment was going around in 2016 when Trump was doing those ridiculous "bans" on immigration. Since then I would argue the US has only increased its influence and power over Europe. Europe needs help with the war and the US has already given immeasurable resources. Europe has almost no skin in the game when it comes to AI. Maybe that's a bubble but the point still stands.
Ofc I don't agree with what the current president is doing, but the idea that businesses and research will flock to Europe is amusing. They've certainly introduced enough barriers to ensure that won't happen.
The U.S. Is Funding Fewer Grants in Every Area of Science and Medicine
Isn't the whole principle about democracy and freedom that you all stick together no matter what political party/parties is in power? If you're just throwing your hands up in the air because your party isn't the one in control, what kind of democracy is that? The whole point is working together with opponents for common goals.
Otherwise, may I interest you in an insurrection? Pretty hot and trendy these times.
When your opponent wants you dead, it's a different story! I am just exercising my right to self-defense.
The greatest timeline for Latin America overall? Post WW2 to now.
The greatest timeline for Oceania overall? Post WW2 to now.
The greatest timeline for India? Post WW2 to now.
The greatest timeline for the rest of Asia overall? Post WW2 to now.
Coming up on 80 years. Here's a short list, please tell me which prior ~80 year period in history these nations had it better overall for their people.
Britain, Ireland, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Poland, Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Greece, Slovakia, Austria, Slovenia, Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria. Russia, Turkey, Kazakhstan. Australia, New Zealand, Canada. China, Japan, Indonesia, India, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand. Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Panama. Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain.
Just most of the world population in that little list.
Even Russia - the people of Russia have far higher standards of living at the median today than they have at any other point in their history. It's not even remotely close.
'But but but the world isn't perfect.' No kidding.
Just recently I made a post here in some thread to point out that even wein backwards East Germany made huge gains - my grandfather, born early 20th century, lived much, much better even by the end of the GDR compared to when he was born in the Weimar Republic.
Especially food became a non-issue in the modern world, productivity increases were gigantic. The Haber-Bosch process, very important at the start of that development, was not a US invention, nor contingent on anything US related.
It would be hard to disentangle US influence, but one can assume even if the US had not become so dominant, much of those developments would still have taken place, lifting up much of the entire world.
China is the alternative. How many countries has China waged war against, toppled democratic governments, established puppet março-states and invaded since 1949?
A liberal, democratic China becoming the hegemon is very possibly better than the status quo (especially under Trump and with the surge of far-right mainstreaming in the US), but China as it is now cannot be trusted to be a good steward of a hypothetical Pax Sinica, just as Trumpist America cannot be trusted.
China also has had border skirmishes with Burma, India, USSR.
There are literally thousands of years of sino-korean wars, so its hard to pin that blame on a specific government. Tibet is a more straightforward case of imperial expansionism from China, although it is also a centuries-old one, dating from Qing dynasty (1700s). The border skirmishes with India stem from mutual dissatisfaction with old British imperial border lines, which both governments disagree with.
Now compare that with the USA list. China's list is, to say the least, much more lightweight, straightforward and understandable. I'd go with that list any day, and most of the world would too.
China ultra-liberalizing and becoming a democracy and then the hegemon could be an okay path but I am not too optimistic about the prospects of those first parts.
Why is it either or the other? Just because the US happens to turn inwards and stop acting like the world police, doesn't mean that other countries suddenly start dreaming of world domination. China and Russian both have plenty of problems in their home fronts and surrounding areas.
China and Russia are consistently led by ruthless people who like power. Plus, even if China does only just conquer Taiwan and then leaves everyone else alone as the hegemon, there's still the matter of them oppressing ~20% of the humans on the planet (their own people). Even if it's the sort of oppression that you don't necessarily ever notice so long as you always stay in line.
Do you know how Russia got so large? They started out small.
They solve such problems by doing the one thing they have always done: expanding. Successful conquest temporarily mitigates internal problems, injustices and inefficiencies.
Video: The History of Russia: Every Year - https://youtu.be/uCIp3CF33ms
Can we back this up? As an american, I'd like to think it's true, but I'd take a historian's viewpoint seriously.
America has failed to live up to those ideals (slavery, plunder, toppling democratically elected leaders to install military dictatorships, unnecessary wars with mass civilian casualties) on multiple occasions, but if you at least look at things on paper, America is selling a better product. And with the (now gutted) aid we provided to the world, and the economic boons of American consumer demand helping to speed up industrialization of poorer countries, benefits weren't just lofty principles.
One nice thing about American ideals is that, domestically, Americans who respect them can fight for them and fight for their preservation and expansion. There exists a noble thing to fight for which can in fact be fought for, and that thing encompasses the principle of not ever permitting people in other countries to suffer so that the United States may gain. Good luck doing any of that in Russia or China in 2025, and likely also in 2050.
Look at this abject propaganda
“ Part of it is ideas and ideals. America represents ideas of liberty, liberalism, democracy, and individualism. The USSR/Russia and China represent the exact opposite.”
This is just pure John Birch society propaganda and at no point has the US actually ever attempted in any real way to realize this
America has often stomped on the ideas it claims to fight for but to say it has never attempted to realize it is very silly and itself just reflexive anti-America propaganda. Look at FDR's words and actions during and after WWII, look at Eisenhower, look at Carter, look at JFK, imagine a future trajectory where Al Gore won that election.
America has sometimes done the exact opposite of helping other countries become healthy democracies - but they also very obviously have sometimes in fact helped other countries become healthy democracies. America's staunch pro-liberty pro-democracy stance is a big part of why the immediate aftermath of WWII led to Europe becoming a mostly democratic, stable quasi-union.
I am saying it's a gray area but that at least on paper America says nice words. You're just saying it's all bad.
England “gave up” scientific and technological leadership during the 20th century. (That’s a tongue-in-cheek take on it, don’t read too much into it.)
Was forced to give up, due to the economic devastation of WWII, might be more accurate (though of course there were other factors too).
We are witnessing the end of... something. Is it the end of the Roman Republic or is this the end of the Roman Empire?
Two very different situations despite being so politically fraught and full of change.
My thoughts after witnessing Horizon Europe in action when I worked at a hardware/materials research-ish company in Sweden:
- So much pork, so much product concept cosplay.
- All of these grandiose pointless abstract "projects".
- Gotta have like 10+ institutions/companies from lots of different countries involved in each grandiose project, leading to insane overheads.
Just give the institutions/companies (demand equity?) funds instead - stop with the stupid cosplay.
Europe needs to be smarter than the US in how to make this more efficient. Right now that shouldn't that hard.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/12/02/upshot/trump-...
Far too early to know the exact long term effects but it’s definitely happening.
who? can you be more specific than your generic "scientists" response?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...
[edit] I think that list is total, not just for a single year. Still telling though.
I have family that has migrated _from_ Europe to the US, they still seem to hold this attitude that they know what is best for the US. They come live here for a higher quality of life and income, then go vacation in Europe like kings, talking about how much cheaper things are, without an ounce of irony. Not sure how they do it.
> guilt tripping, etc. but very little about what the EU plans to do in retaliation.
Abandoning the rules based order, science, equality, personal rights; it all will have devastating effects. For Americans, for everyone.
The US position in the NATO is an arrangement like the Americans wanted for decades, it enabled the US to profit greatly from it, and Europa was happy to have the US as a counter balance. Now, if the US wants to change the arrangement, that is of course possible. But we have signed contracts, blackmail and extortion shouldn't have a place. Can't share sources, but under this administration several powerful but corrupt people in the army even tried to extort European partners already. It is on track to become Russified in that sense, nothing to be gleeful over.
The article itself even says here:
> [...] the US government has cut scientific grants to academics working on diversity-related topics, halted biomedical grants to international partners, and demanded universities shut down academic units that “belittle” conservative ideas [...]
I'd say it's fair to question if taxpayers should be paying for "diversity related projects." The "belittle conservative ideas" thing is problematic, as that is totally subjective. However, I don't think anyone can say in good faith that most universities aren't incredibly bias. Having been in one circa 2020, it was not a welcoming place if you weren't firmly liberal/progressive. Of course I have to place my disclaimer that I'm not a fan of what Trump is doing, or the man himself for that matter.
Conservatives in the past have also tried to belittle research grants to justify eliminating them, such as "studying X about fruit flies." It might sound silly to a lay person but drosophila is an incredibly important model organism from which many discoveries have come.
The problem is a highly political, often careless or incompetent, and sometimes blatantly corrupt administration taking a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel to so-called "waste."
[1] https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2019...
Do you have a source for this? How can you prove it was simply because it was "diversity related" and not because it someone, somewhere determined the budget needed to be cut because the spending was wasteful?
As far as I can tell, the budget never passed, so we have no way to know one way or another the effects.
I have never seen a government entity claim that cutting their budget wouldn't be catastrophic.
By many measures, over 75% of studies have historically focused on white male populations, which for a variety of potential research/treatment areas, is important to control for.
https://www.google.com/search?q=percentage+of+medical+studie...
You do not trust the current administration to be objective when it comes to cutting funding. I don't trust universities to be objective when it comes to funding.
I take any claims/studies from universities regarding gender/race with a huge grain of salt. There is too much room for bias and sensationalism. Not long ago there was a study claiming that white doctors were treating non-white babies with less care than white babies. However, the original authors made several mistakes and the study couldn't replicate.
Funnily enough, if you google percentage of medical studies that can't be replicated, you get 75% too :)
People still bring in bad faith arguments about private companies funding research or replication crisis. Sure these are big issues in current scientific research. There is no denying that.
While there might be an intuitive sense of less public research means money saved, there is no data or research (duh!) showing the impact of reduced public research.
From what we have seen so far this will make things worse - because for one private research is going to biased. It happens today but public research can counter that. Later there will be no defense. Like MAHA report making up BS sources using AI to push its agenda.
The irony in all of this is - the man pushing ivermectin during a pandemic - one of the biggest replication issue if not the big one - is telling others how to do research and people are defending him.
As the saying goes, reality has a well-established (left|liberal) bias...
Japan was the next big thing.
But the collective efforts of some government agencies, academia and the private sector helped reverse the trend.
American dominance is sure not a given but with an almost century of inertia, all hope is not lost (especially compared to the alternative).
Well that's the key. The current administration is doing its best to sabotage science.
With appropriate planning and funding, the next administration can definitely reverse the trend.
Keyword: competent.
mlinhares•1h ago
Swenrekcah•1h ago
afavour•1h ago
Recent changes in the US have changed that calculus but you can’t create an entire industry in the blink of an eye (and, of course, those changes can be reversed at any point)
lisbbb•1h ago
silisili•1h ago
In order for all of this to work cleanly, you need the everyman taken care of and actually willing to participate and have hope for the future. Until then you'll just get a slew of likely underhanded populists, because they at least pretended to care.
gcanyon•1h ago
That's why you need smart people who care planning things. Miss out on either of those and you're going to fail. And right how we have people "planning" things who are neither smart nor caring.
cgio•1h ago
afavour•38m ago
Because scientific industries form a part of the US economy and hire a great many average Americans! And when you employ a good number of people there are a bunch of connected industries you spend money with, who in turn employ a lot of average Americans.
estearum•1h ago
afavour•52m ago
- how many US citizens do these labs hire for every immigrant scientist they employ? There are support roles at all levels, all the way down to custodian. What jobs are lost when these grants are denied? A lot of this work will (hopefully!) continue, just in other counties. Now those countries get to employ their citizens instead.
- are the youth unemployed compared to previous levels? Are these unemployed youths able to do the jobs the immigrants do?
The US doesn’t take in skilled immigrants as a favor to the rest of the world or something. Other countries educate their citizens to a high level then the US poaches them and has them contribute to growing the US economy. It’s the story of countless Silicon Valley startups so it’s especially surprising to see this sentiment on HN!
estearum•1h ago
It's a complete own-goal for us to give up what we fought so hard for.
tensor•1h ago
Long term science is not at risk. Science doesn’t need the US. This is, however, a big problem for the US.
exceptione•1h ago
When we talk about innovation, hn has a narrow focus on the well-known monopolies. That is understandable, because they are well-known brands, not some obscure innovative Swiss company in a critical supply chain. Reality is more complex than we discuss about, fortunately enough.
But the focus on the winner-takes-all is also a bit unhealthy, because monopolies are the anti-thesis of a free market. A free market needs rules to keep it free and fair. I know, that conflicts with the sponsored narratives--how else can you get people to justify gatekeeper siphoning everyone of in their walled garden?