Europhilia to Europhobia

Remember when we all wanted to live in Europe? We were mesmerized by the slower pace of economic activity, and we admired the communitarian values. Today, I’m guessing fewer of us with US or UK passports are looking to swap them for EU docs, at least not anytime soon.

Relative to China and the US, Europe is on a long term trajectory of economic decline. Recently, a big pharma CEO brought attention to the trend:

“AstraZeneca plans to invest $50 billion to boost US manufacturing and research by 2030 to shore up its position in the crucial market. The US accounts for over 40% of revenue, which CEO Pascal Soriot said Thursday could be “half of our potential revenue by 2030.” 

He also issued warnings to Europe and the UK, where R&D spending lags behind that of the world’s two largest economies, that they might lose their health sovereignty.

A recent editorial by Lidia Borrell-Damian in Science Magazine (October 16, 2025) summarized weaknesses in the European approach to the global innovation economy. Let’s reprise her article, highlighting Europe’s ‘fault lines’ as we go:

“The European Union (EU) has the world’s largest funding program exclusively for research and innovation (R&I)—Horizon Europe—which is now preparing its 10th edition for 2028–2034. 

”The good news is that the EU aims to raise Horizon Europe’s budget by 83% and (1) continue the trend of supporting all types of institutions and partnerships, including universities, research institutes, small-and medium-sized enterprises, nonprofit organizations, and a widening circle of international collaborations.

“Horizon Europe is the nickname given to both the 9th and 10th EU Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation, with goals that require a careful (2) balance among long-and short-term gains, security and openness, and economic growth and social well-being. 

“Horizon Europe will be structured across (3) four ‘pillars’ (Excellent Science; Competitiveness and Society; Innovation; and European Research Area) for continuity with previous programs. The first pillar… will continue to fund projects that embrace scientific curiosity and freedom of inquiry exclusively on the basis of scientific excellence. (4) Safeguarding their governance and independence from policy-driven objectives is essential…   

“The new Framework Programme is meant to (5) coordinate with the European Commission’s European Competitiveness Fund, a merger of multiple funding initiatives primarily focused on scaling up the EU’s industrial and economic development. 

“Horizon Europe’s continued commitment to (6) reduce persisting disparities in R&I capacity across Europe through its “Widening” program promises a more integrated and cohesive European R&I environment. Here, more focus should be placed on “brain circulation” to increase the research capacity of regions and countries that lag behind to achieve a level playing field across the continent… 

“There are other important issues in Horizon Europe that require more detailed consideration, such as (7) administrative simplification, environmentally sustainable research practices, and inclusivity.”

Sounds great! So what’s my problem? Ms. Borrell-Damian is endeavoring to defend Europe’s technology initiatives and, if possible, to push them toward an even greater emphasis on pure science. However, postmodern as we are, she can’t help but betray cultural biases (above) that will likely undermine her project:

1.  It is not the job of science to promote institutional diversity or democratization.

2. It is not for science to achieve ‘balance’; at most, that is a regulatory function of government. The job of science is discovery.

3.  Four pillars, only one of which includes the word, ‘science’; one pillar (‘curiosity…innovation…excellence’) would suffice.

4. Politics has no place in science. Of course, that’s naïve…but it’s a goal.

5. ‘Coordinate…with a merger of…multiple funding initiatives.’ How many times can you step on ‘product’ before it becomes just talcum powder?

6. It is not the job of science to reduce sociological disparities or to level the economic playing field.

7. Once again, it is not up to science to ensure inclusivity.

That is not to say that these points lack merit. On a number of these issues society does have a legitimate interest which it should promote through appropriate organs of government. But these are not the proper burdens of theoretical physicists, research biologists, or lab technicians. They have their hands (and minds) full creating the next century for us.

But cheer up, this dark cloud has a charcoal lining. Not only is the EU allowing sociological concerns to erode the energy, resources, and enthusiasm of its brightest scientists, it is also trivializing the very socioeconomic issues it purports to prioritize.

Consider: (1) Strengthening the research infrastructure, (2) balancing short and long term goals, openness and security, productivity and well-being, (3) optimizing the research milieu, (4) insulting science from politics, (5) coordinating with other programs, (6) managing and mitigating economic disparities, and (7) ensuring the efficiency, sustainability, and inclusivity of all projects. 

Don’t these concerns merit the concerted attention of their own dedicated professionals? Does it make sense to think that these issues will be taken seriously by scientists for whom such matters are afterthoughts at best?

Just as it is foolish to leave the waging of war to the generals, so it is counter-productive to burden research scientists with the task of correcting society’s structural flaws. Whether and how Europe digs itself out of this cultural morass is unclear. Suffice to say, until it does, you can color me Europhobic…though I do miss a good espresso.  

Lidia Borrell-Damián is the secretary general of Science Europe, Brussels, Belgium. lidia.borrell-damian@scienceeurope.org

***

The Astronomer (1668) by Johannes Vermeer portrays a scholar deeply absorbed in the study of the heavens, symbolizing humanity’s quest for knowledge and divine understanding. The soft, directional light from the window illuminates both the man and his instruments, emphasizing enlightenment through reason and observation. Vermeer’s meticulous use of detail and composition transforms this quiet interior scene into a meditation on science, faith, and intellectual discovery.