Europe can capture a brain drain in the United States - if it acts quickly

Countries should cooperate to take advantage of the opportunity that happens once a generation to become the main direction for scientists.

In the 1990s, I left Portugal to become a scientist. London, then New York - at that time I could find the financial support and intellectual environment I needed only by moving abroad.

Today, many scientists in the United States are facing a reduction in public funding for research and face similar calculations. I saw the evidence. Now I have returned to Portugal, I work as the executive director of the Gulbenkian Institute of Molecular Medicine (GIMM) in Lisbon. Over the past 2 months, more than 30 junior researchers in American institutions have written to me to ask about employment opportunities - 10 times more than I usually expected.

European countries must work together to become a global destination for scientific talents.

Efforts are being made. The European Union initiative offers incentives and protection to researchers affected by political instability or funding cuts. Programs in France are aimed at placing displaced or returning scientists.

But most of these initiatives are fragmentary. A coordinated strategy is crucial to lure the brightest minds.

CERN, a European particle physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, shows what can be achieved. It was created in the 1950s by physicists who convinced governments to invest in common infrastructure and long-term cooperation. Now more than 12,000 scientists participate in it and it thrives thanks to stable financing, open science and a culture of international partnership.

Similarly, programs launched in the 1990s and 2000s made Canada a global research center. Funding for national priorities, such as environmental and genomic research, has been combined with competitive working conditions, including accelerated immigration and world-class infrastructure.

And the Chinese programs "A Thousand Talents" and "A Thousand Talents" have lured thousands of scientists with generous start-up funding - often exceeding $500,000 and guaranteed for five to ten years, as well as the promise of autonomy over their research program and budget.

How can Europe imitate these successes? More funding is key. Last year, two reports recommended that the budget of the European Framework, which funds research and development across the EU, be doubled, from almost 100 billion euros (112 billion US dollars) for the 2021-27 cycle to 200 billion euros and 220 billion euros for 2028-34. This would allow institutions to offer competitive wages, joint infrastructure and long-term career support.

At the same time, each country should invest more in research and development. The EU's target of spending 3% of gross domestic product on research remains an unsused majority of members. Mandatory obligations are necessary - if fiscal rules can be observed, then minimal investment in science.

These investments should not be focused on a few elite institutions: strategic choices can contribute to excellence in many places. For example, national investments and EU funds have enabled several biomedical institutes, including GIMM, to attract international top-level researchers through generous start-up packages, mobility programs and institutional autonomy. The Slovenian József Stefan Institute and the National Institute of Chemistry, both in Ljubljana, took a similar approach to succeed in materials science, artificial intelligence and green chemistry.

Financing is not everything and everything. Researchers also appreciate intellectual freedom, time for reflection and space for discovery. Europe is already a world leader in this. The European Research Council annually allocates more than 2 billion euros in grants that allow researchers to deal with fundamental issues without predetermined priorities or political restrictions. The European Innovation Council invests 10 billion euros in innovative research and technology between 2021 and 2027. EU scholarships of Maria Sklodowska-Curie finance novice researchers moving to and around Europe.

Countries should scale these funding funds together and use them as recruitment tools. This means coordinating application systems and developing a single center through which all options can be studied. Marketing campaigns can represent Europe as an attractive, diverse area of research. From the European Molecular Biology Laboratory with six branches across the continent to the Francis Crick Institute in London and the Biocenter in Basel, Switzerland, Europe offers various financing models and intellectual cultures. This diversity is a strategic advantage, but it should be visible and navigable through the development of joint recruitment platforms and the harmonization of mobility programs.

European countries should focus on attracting researchers from areas where the continent has already succeeded. For example, U.S. rules on genome editing and reproductive science are being tightened and cultural battles are intensifying; Europe can offer a more stable regulatory environment and a stronger ethical framework. In areas such as climatology, infectious diseases and global and digital health, Europe has both world-renowned institutions and a strong track record of highly effective work.

The problems will remain. Europe's research landscape is a patchwork of funding systems and priorities. Visa processes are opaque and often slow. But the continent has what it needs: talent, institutions and a variety of ideas. This window of opportunity will not remain open indefinitely.