When the European Commission announced an extra €210 million for the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) on 1 October, it was presented as a clear signal: Europe wants researchers. The flagship EU programme, which has supported over 150,000 doctoral and postdoctoral researchers since 1996, will now finance more than 700 additional fellowships across 2026 and 2027.
The timing was deliberate. Since Donald Trump returned to the White House, US academia has been shaken by budget cuts, visa restrictions, and a crackdown on campus protests. Many scientists have begun looking elsewhere, and Brussels has tried to position Europe as the natural alternative. The MSCA boost is part of Choose Europe, a broader initiative launched in May 2025 to attract academics and innovators to the continent.
But the numbers tell a sobering story. The 2026 MSCA postdoctoral fellowship call alone drew more than 21,500 applications. The extra funding, while welcome, will cover only a fraction of that demand. As one European research official put it, the gesture is more symbolic than transformative.
A fragmented approach
Helga Nowotny, former president of the European Research Council, is blunt about the shortcomings. “The intention was a good one, but the way Europe went about it was, and I'm sorry to say that, not well coordinated,” she told Euronews. Member states, universities, and EU institutions have often competed rather than cooperated, diluting the continent's appeal.
Nowotny argues that Europe should focus on early-career researchers, who face the most precarious conditions in the US. “We are now in a more realistic phase, and we should concentrate on getting young people because the situation for young researchers in the US is getting very difficult,” she said.
She also warns against complacency. With the rise of extremist political groups across Europe, academic freedom cannot be taken for granted. “We have to be very attentive and not fall into the trap of the illusion that just because some countries have written in their constitution the freedom of science, that this is all that is needed,” she added.
Beyond attraction: retention and innovation
Attracting researchers is only the first step. Orla Feely, president of University College Dublin, points to practical hurdles: visa permits, pathways to industry, and the overall quality of life. “We know that we have great research in Europe, but we also know that as you advance further along the competitiveness spectrum, that Europe has fallen behind other countries,” she said.
Feely remains optimistic, noting that awareness is growing. “There are a lot of things that we need to get right, but I think people are increasingly aware of these and are working together so that we join up the undoubted talent coming out of European universities and turn it into competitive advantage.”
Manuel Heitor, a professor and former Portuguese minister for science, technology and higher education, frames the problem differently. “What we are facing is an investment gap that actually then results in an innovation gap,” he told Euronews Next. “We need to recognise that we need to align and accelerate research and innovation, and this will require an adequate funding level and better governance.”
The debate over resources is intensifying as the EU negotiates its next long-term budget, the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028-2034. A proposal from the Irish Presidency of the European Council, presented on 10 October, would allocate €158 billion to Horizon Europe, the EU's key research and innovation programme. Many universities have criticised this as a cut compared to the European Commission's original proposal.
For now, Europe's promise to researchers remains conditional. The continent has the talent and the institutions, but turning that into a genuine alternative to the US will require more than slogans. As Nowotny puts it, Europe must move from intention to coordination—and from coordination to investment.
