...
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.
What is your source?
We’re entering a multipolar world. That means more border wars, not less. Everything I’ve seen indicates more demand for American military and intelligence sharing, not less, despite the paradox therein.
I totally take your point around border wars, but I would expect to see substantial efforts to reduce the need for US intelligence, given the caprice shown by the current administration.
> 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.
hmmmmm
hmmm indeed.
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.
https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/impact-nih-research/serving-so...
The US isn’t doing the world a favor by funding this stuff. The country directly benefits from it.
[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 problem is that the "US" is not seated at the table, just a bunch of kleptocrats and some zealots. The mutual benefits are real for the US, as in the populace, but the problem is that if the string-pulling group has to choose between their own interest or the US interest, they pick the first option.
I can absolutely understand you will reject the following instinctively, but let me tell you that for some fractions in the current movement, the idea of "burning" it all down is something they don't see as a bad thing. Turning the clock back in time, back to the gilded age, doing away with modernity, equal rights, secularism and non-whites--they dream about it. It is something horribly detrimental for the 99.9999%, sure, but they shouldn't have a say anyway.
And instinctively, a EU that "becomes a shining light on the hill" in absence of the USA, is a threat to the USA. The recently released foreign policy isn't shy about it. The same dynamic as Putin has with a thriving open democracy next to its border. Can't exist, dangerous, needs to be dismantled.
The trouble isn't EU <-> US. It is the US as the representation of the American People does not exist anymore. However flawed it might have been in the past, this is something else entirely. There is not even a notion of normalcy anymore. As such, the EU can't deal with the American People anymore via the regular diplomatic channels to reach a common ground for win-wins. So these very modest public comments from officials you will read now and then in the press are nothing less than an alarm to the American people itself. If you ask me, I don't think this message will successfully cross the information space in the US, but what options do they have? If you look at HN, anything that might be interpreted as a criticism quickly becomes an identitarian battle. Which, given the binary political system in the USA and the general human trait of tribalism is quite understandable, but nonetheless self-defeating and unfortunate for both sides.
> 1. The overwhelming conversation is about how this relationship isn't worth it.
> 2. Even among liberal Americans it's about how the U.S benefits immensely from the relationship.
> If you can't address that concern, then Americans will assume you ceded it.
Assuming you did mean it somewhat like that, I would say:
a. the American information space is warped and segmented. Corporate ownership, the abolishment of fairness doctrine, information deserts, algorithmic control, conconditioning by corporate narratives (as old as the US oligarchy)--it is all highly dysfunctional. No small feat to get anything sensible past these filters.
b. In line with a, even the Democrats are locked out of this information space. Some titles read by the liberals might be marketed as such, but they are controlling the narratives as much as possible, with language, below-fold, above-fold, false balance via "op-eds" and editors stepping in to relegate possibly impactful stories to books, so no one reads them. Sure, they won't go fox because you can't do that with this readership. For reference, look back at the New York Times: Trump and Project 2025 had given enough signals of what was about to come, but the newspaper frantically tried to balance it with endless stories of Biden's age.
c. As aside, it is real bad, but subtly bad. If one can only read English, I would recommend The Guardian to get real journalism.
d. To wrap it up, Americans are not reachable anymore. When dem voters and rep voters cannot talk with each other, their information space is warped. Do not expect the EU to even get anything in this mess through the gatekeepers. Even the Americans-in-the-know can't.
The idea that Americans are unreachable is false. Republicans hold on to their power by only a slim amount. All of America's most influential cities lean liberal. The most influential right wing media is social media, and left wing sources still have plenty of room to work there. The EU needs to make a strong case for itself instead of assuming what it's owned.
> Republicans hold on to their power by only a slim amount.
> left wing sources still have plenty of room to work there
> The EU needs to make a strong case for itself instead of assuming what it's owned.
Secondly, the US populace will get hit harder than Europe. That begs the question why the US own voices shouldn't be the first. And if they fail, how would the EU do that better?
Long story short, you might be right that the EU should be more proactive, maybe. Their weak voice might be partly attributed to their limited geopolitical agenda. But, even if their voice could and should be louder, I have big doubts it would make a difference.
_____
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.
(Please don't just respond to the quote - lots of context in the full article.)
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/14/nx-s1-5349473/trump-free-spee...
This language-based filtering began in the first term and has been widely reported.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/16/cdc-banned-w...
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...
Maybe, but a left-wing bias at least allows right-wingers to speak, which is more than the right-wing wants for everyone else.
Note: left-wing bias doesn't guarantee an audience.
The US spent ~1 trillion dollars on science in 2024, 2025 will be maybe 10% less.
The EU spent ~460 billion dollars on science in 2024 ... and 2025 will be 10 to 20% less.
So the problem I have here is simple. I mostly agree with you. But European governments, despite having more money to spend, spent less on science, and are taking back grants faster than Trump. Per-capita or per-GDP-dollar they spent 3 to 4 times less than the US on science. In absolute terms, they spent less than half the US spent.
EU politicians (and diplomats) are doing worse than Trump on this issue, not better.
This is the part that's always forgotten. Everyone's gleefully saying that this Trump White House is going to finally, after decades, reverse the EU to US brain drain!
Then you look at the facts ... and no, it's not. In fact it may accelerate under Trump. What the EU is doing to science funding is worse than what Trump is doing.
I mean, I get it. Trump is worse than Biden. Or, to put it a different way: the US is so far ahead of the EU in science that the major idiotic stumble Trump is turning out to be ... just doesn't matter. But yeah, bring back Biden!
If getting a science grant for X is 5 years of effort in the EU, it's about 2 years of effort in the US. Sure, it used to be 1.8 years and that sucks. But there is still a very large difference and obviously the expected outcome here, if we're being honest, is that the US ... will easily remain far ahead in science to the EU.
"What about EU? European governments, despite having more money to spend, spent less on science, and are taking back grants faster than Trump." where have we seen this? Oh yes, the RW who talk about EU "offloading" science to US.
I understand this makes for good TV content where the focus is to shift goalposts to new topic.
I didn't make the points about brain drain or whether US will remain ahead. I only pointed out is that the real reason WH is doing this and those on the right gleefully clapping along. People defend this in bad faith. There is no way to know if this is going to be net positive. Numbers look fine on paper but the cost of say private biased research unchallenged by neutral public research might erase the gain. I am fine if I am proven wrong in 4 years and things remain unchanged.
But yeah, Biden something something and Trump something something.
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•1mo ago
Swenrekcah•1mo ago
afavour•1mo 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•1mo ago
silisili•1mo 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•1mo 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•1mo ago
afavour•1mo 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•1mo ago
afavour•1mo 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•1mo ago
It's a complete own-goal for us to give up what we fought so hard for.
tensor•1mo ago
Long term science is not at risk. Science doesn’t need the US. This is, however, a big problem for the US.
exceptione•1mo 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?