‘Project Einstein’: research excellence for Europe and the world

In the 1930s and 1940s, half a million European scientists and intellectuals fled fascism, finding refuge in universities and industry in the United States. Many did ground-breaking research during and after the Second World War – not least Albert Einstein. Europe now has a chance to return the favour.

Many excellent researchers are under threat from the Trump administration’s attack on US science. Now is the moment for the European Union to welcome top brains – whether Americans or citizens of other countries – who are seeking to leave the US. The EU should offer funds to allow their research to continue, while opening up academic job markets that lack sufficient competition.

There are good reasons for the EU, rather than EU governments or universities, to coordinate this effort. First, the US administration is stifling research on global public goods, especially climate and medical science. For the benefit of all humankind, Europe should fill the gap to enable research that relies on databases and time-series to continue.

Second, the EU has an enlightened self-interest in boosting its own research, in both the public and private sectors, with world-class brainpower. For years, Europeans have bemoaned the loss of innovative talent to the US – not only European brains but also those from India, China and other countries. Europe’s salaries might be lower and research facilities less lavish, but access to decent healthcare and education are universal, and the rule of law still functions. For younger researchers in particular, Europe is more attractive for bringing up families – and they would contribute their best years of work here.

Third, European universities would benefit from an influx of world-class academics and students, to enhance their research and teaching and to shake up some establishments, which have become complacent. The EU is under-represented among top universities, but over-represented at the medium-to-high quality levels. European universities would benefit from bringing in academics and private-sector researchers across many disciplines. An EU-level framework is needed to ensure fully open competition and to reduce national favouritism. The offer should not aim only at hard scientists, but also social scientists and others facing cuts and outright persecution from the US administration.

France and the European Commission have already announced initiatives to attract scientific talent. These are welcome, but details are lacking, and the outlined funding seems small compared to the importance of this opportunity for Europe. The €500 million over three years suggested by the Commission would be a tiny fraction of the EU’s common budget. Some institutions in countries with fiscal space, such as Germany and France, are already aiming for a ‘brain gain’ by providing national funds, but other countries will need help with the costs.

Larger funds at EU level could be mobilised, for example, through the EU Innovation Fund to support low-carbon tech R&D. It has an annual budget of about €4 billion, of which about 10% could be redeployed to attract top-level researchers in clean tech, which urgently needs increased support given the Trump administration’s deep cuts. 

Funding under NextGenerationEU (NGEU) intended to support the green and digital transitions is also underused. Over €350 billion (about a half of the overall envelope) has not yet been disbursed because EU countries have not met the programme’s conditions – and NGEU runs only until next year. EU countries decided in principle to dedicate €55 billion of NGEU money to R&D. Given the large amounts not yet spent, it is time to change the process and push national governments, also with a view to attracting global talent. 

The EU’s post-pandemic Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), meanwhile, has over €40 billion in grants available. Just 5% of that amount could provide €400 million over five years to enhance top quality R&D. Over five years, the EU could mobilise about €4 billion euro from NGEU and the RRF alone. This would allow even the EU countries with the most constrained national budgets to compete in attracting top-level international researchers, for example for new research projects on digital technologies and climate change. 

The EU’s Marie Curie Fellowships and European Research Council (ERC) grants are already open to applications from the US and elsewhere. High-quality applications from the US can be expected to increase (as they have already in a similar German scheme). The combined Marie Curie/ERC budget is about €4 billion, and a 20% increase would not be a strain.

Attracting talent requires, among other factors, a favourable research environment, access to funding and competitive financial conditions. Cooperation with top industrial laboratories would be a plus. An overall EU framework for spending these redeployed funds should be established to avoid incumbency bias at national level and ensure open competition by inviting industry participation in projects.

It would be fitting for Europe to finance an upgrade of its research infrastructure through an infusion of overseas talent. We suggest calling this effort Project Einstein in homage to the most famous European scientist who found refuge in the US nearly a century ago.