Can the American brain drain be Europe's 'brain gain'?

Laura Mirella Corbellla
2 hours ago
6 min read

Source: Benjamin Ashton; https://unsplash.com/s/photos/academic-research

A new era for researchers

In the 1930s, the draconian regimes of Nazism and Fascism provoked an unprecedented exodus of over 15,000 intellectuals to the United States. Among the Jew and non-Jew scientists and artists who found refuge there were Einstein, Fermi, Adorno and Marcuse. These bright minds enriched American history with scientific breakthroughs like the Manhattan Project, and cultural memorabilia. Without this immigration, the U.S. couldn’t have triumphed and consolidated its position as the powerhouse of research both in social sciences and STEM. However, the current U.S. administration’s policies could reverse this trend. Indeed, as a result of several limitations and suspicions on certain research topics, such as ‘climate science’, ‘diversity’ and ‘gender studies’, a veil of palpable fear has covered American academia. Researchers have seen their intrinsic right to free expression undermined or even revoked. Legal battles between the administration and universities, especially Harvard, have inflamed public discourse and divided media attention.

Frozen science grants and budget cuts, especially in the department of Education and scientific enterprises, have fostered discontent and protests. Nearly 2,000 of the nation’s top researchers (from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine - NASEM) denounced the onslaught through a heartfelt letter, but the deafening silence from the organization has been just as loud. In the same vein Nobel laureates have petitioned the NASEM to intervene in favour of workers under threat. The reluctance of most universities and research centers to publicly take a stance and wind up in the administration’ ‘blacklist’, has been dissatisfying for many.

In this climate of uncertainty and frustration, Nature revealed that 75% of interviewed scientists based in the United States are considering leaving the country. The data was collected from over 1,600 readers of the renowned journal. It is especially observable among early-career researchers: among the 690 post-docs, 548 want to leave, as do 255 of the 340 PhD students.

Europe leveraging on the 'gigantic miscalculation'

Europe, albeit too timidly, is slowly realising that this setback for science could be transformed into a tremendous opportunity. Several universities have already rolled out initiatives, with French universities leading the charge. Aix-Marseille University’s Safe Place for Science programme, launched in March in response to U.S. budget cuts under the Trump administration, has attracted roughly 300 applicants. The university is now interviewing them. Similarly, US researchers studying biology, health, climate change, and energy will be hosted by the University of Toulouse thanks to a €6 million grant. Norway and Belgium are also progressing: The Norwegian government is thinking of taking steps to make it easier for American scientists and students to enter the country, and Vrije Universiteit Brussel has established 12 postdoctoral slots with an emphasis on US researchers. In Italy, several universities have expressed interest in incentivising the hiring of American talent. On the legislative front, France has proposed a bill to establish the status of "scientific refugee".

On these matters, the European Union as a whole has started to react, offering a vocal and decisive response by providing financial help to U.S. based researchers and hoping to capitalize on what Ursula von der Leyen defined a ‘gigantic miscalculation’. During an event called Choose Europe for Science at the Sorbonne University in May, organized by the French government and the European Union, an investment of 500 million euros to attract and support U.S.-based researchers over the next two years was announced. Although that amount is not much compared to the billions in cuts American universities face, it comes on top of the $105 billion international research program called Horizon Europe that supports scientific advances and academic prowess. Following this strategic decision, Macron said his government would commit additional $113 million to the program. Moreover, Von der Leyen expressed the desire for EU member states to invest 3% of gross domestic product in research and development by 2030.

Inside the Horizon programme 2026-2027, the European Commission is working on a new call for European Research Area (ERA) Chairs worth EUR 230 million. If endorsed by Member States, the call would more than double the budget of the previous round. To complement this plan, additional support of €1 million per call will be offered through the ERC (European Research Council) Advanced Grants to cover relocation and start-up costs.

These funding sources will certainly be palatable to foreign talent, but they fail to capture the bigger picture. To assess accurately the extent of researchers relocating in Europe, we must understand more about the different socio-economic and long-term stability they may find there, as well as the cultural factors contained in the equation.

An analysis on wooing researchers: realistic scenario or lucid dream?

Europe has lagged behind the US on investments in universities and research centres for many years, resulting in more antiquated and less equipped infrastructure. Second, scholars often underline the differences in salaries in Europe that are comparatively much lower than American amounts. A top researcher at the University of California can earn between $500,000 and over $1 million annually, while even the highest-paid professors at top European institutions such as Spain’s Complutense University typically earn no more than €75,000. Furthermore, precarious contracts are prevalent and almost normalised in European institutions. Trade unions in France have long vindicated better contracts and salary provisions, with scarce results.

Simply providing grants and limited fellowships will not suffice in luring researchers and transform Europe into a permanent safe haven. Continuity and job prospects should be taken into account more seriously if the EU truly wants to be competitive. It needs to think more structurally about what to offer fresh and promising talents, as much as how to reduce barriers for international students and researchers. Recent policy changes in Norway, which stopped mandatory language training for foreign postdocs and PhD students, demonstrate how national measures can create more welcoming and flexible research environments.

Finally, cultural affinity can play a pivotal role when it comes to deciding where to direct one’s job-hunting efforts. Canada and the UK have been a top destination due to the similarities in terms of language and traditions. As well as for how relatively easy it is to move back, thanks to partnerships and prestige. American universities are likely to consider sending their top researchers abroad to prestigious universities like Cambridge or Oxford, and then “recruit them back” so there is an “indirect access” to the networks at those schools which makes them competitive.

According to a study carried out by Bruegel (a think tank based in Brussels, specialised in economic policy), a telling indicator about researchers’ propensity to relocate is given by the degree of international exposure they have experienced in their formation. All else being equal, a researcher with at least one degree earned abroad has shown a predisposition to relocate in the past. Based on this assumption, up to a fifth of researchers in top US universities could be persuaded to relocate since they have previously studied in Europe.

Regarding doctoral degrees, more researchers hold a US PhD than an EU PhD globally (37.4 percent versus 28.1 percent), reflecting the US’s global leadership in doctoral training. Among US-based researchers in particular, 70 percent earned their PhD domestically, and 7.7 percent in the EU.

Of the postdocs whose educational histories could be obtained, 33 to 43 percent were fully educated overseas (57 to 67 percent had at least one degree in the US). These postdocs were at Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania, some of the universities most threatened by the US government. 7 to 19 percent of postdoctoral researchers at the chosen leading US universities had at least one degree from a European university, indicating that a sizable portion has EU educational roots.

To conclude the analysis and forecast, early-career scientists who are not yet well-established in their respective universities might be simpler to recruit in Europe, as well as international researchers with experience abroad. Most likely, non-US citizens are searching for tenure-track positions while on temporary visas, hence they will be open-minded and more flexible. Career-related considerations have a big impact on their choice of location, and Europe can entice them to join its vibrant communities only by reassessing its provisions and practices.