Viewpoint: Europe stands at a crossroads

Universities remain the backbone of social and technological progress, even if in some European societies their role is too often questioned. We create knowledge, educate future leaders and drive innovation that shapes the way we live. Without strong universities, there can be no sustainable development or long-term economic success. Nevertheless, it seems that not everybody in Europe understands the power and strength of basic science and its importance for the future progress of the continent.

Across Europe, universities have for centuries been the engines of discovery and learning. Since the Renaissance, they have embodied the belief that knowledge is both a public good and the foundation of societal advancement.

The modern understanding of how science drives progress can be traced to 1945, when Vannevar Bush, science advisor to US President Harry Truman, published his landmark report Science, the Endless Frontier. Bush’s central message was simple but transformative: “basic science is the pacemaker of technological progress.”

Bush argued that only curiosity-driven research creates breakthroughs that change the world, while applied research merely improves what is already known. His report advocating massive public investment in universities and research institutions reshaped US science policy. This vision built the foundation for decades of American leadership in innovation, from the space race to the internet and biotechnology revolutions.

He also proposed systematic public support for students, not as social welfare, but as a strategic investment in national development. “A nation must build a reservoir of intellect to lead its progress,” he wrote. Today, eighty years later, his ideas remain as relevant as ever.

The power of basic science

After the Second World War, US investment in fundamental research expanded dramatically, accelerating both technological and social progress. Europe, which had led scientific development for centuries, gradually fell behind. By the 1980s, the pharmaceutical industry, once Europe’s stronghold, had shifted its centre of gravity to the US.

This did not happen because the US government directly funded companies. It happened because it funded basic research at universities and public institutes, creating a fertile ecosystem from which private innovation could grow. The same dynamic now applies in China, which is rapidly closing the gap with the US through strategic, long-term investment in science.

The contrast with Europe is stark. While European leaders talk about innovation, public funding for the foundational science that makes innovation possible remains insufficient. A recent example illustrates this imbalance: in May, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced an additional €500 million for the European Research Council, the EU’s flagship programme for frontier science. The aim was to attract researchers from the US, where some federal science budgets were being cut.

Half a billion euros sounds impressive, until one learns that Harvard University alone lost $2.2 billion in US federal research funding in 2025. In other words, Europe’s “extra” funding to lure scientists from the US equals barely a quarter of the research income lost by a single US university. This comparison shows just how deep the transatlantic funding gap really is.

Despite national contributions, total public investment in research across the EU still lags far behind the US and China. In fact, China has already overtaken Europe in total R&D spending. If the current trajectory continues, more researchers leaving the US will head east to China rather than to Europe, where research conditions remain less competitive.

Europe’s dangerous shift in priorities

Contrary to common belief, the vast majority of US science funding does not go to private industry and applied science but to basic, curiosity-driven research. Policymakers there long ago learned that without a strong foundation of fundamental science, true innovation is impossible. Every major technological revolution, from computers and the internet to vaccines and artificial intelligence, grew out of publicly funded basic research. Recent breakthroughs in generative AI, which promise to reshape our lives, are not the product of a few years of work at OpenAI, Google, Meta or Microsoft. These tools were built on the results of over half a century of basic AI research, which began in the 1970s.

Yet Europe is in danger of forgetting this lesson. The Commission’s current emphasis on short-term, application-oriented projects and “innovation ecosystems” risks undermining the very foundation of scientific discovery.

Recent debates over the next EU Framework Programme (FP10) illustrate the stakes. Thanks to strong advocacy from European university associations and the support of several national governments, FP10 has so far been preserved as an independent instrument within the proposed EU budget. This was not guaranteed: early drafts of the budget envisioned merging funding for research, innovation, economy and defence into a single financial pillar. Such a move would likely have ended systematic EU-level support for basic science, with severe long-term consequences for Europe’s competitiveness and knowledge base.

Even now, the future of FP10 remains uncertain. Some Commission documents propose linking it closely with the new European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), a €220 billion instrument designed to boost industrial and technological capacity. While this might not necessarily be a bad idea—early discussions suggested that the Competitiveness Fund could also support basic research—the latest ECF documents exclude both basic research and innovation entirely. 

As a result, a massive share of EU resources would bypass the research community altogether. Even more concerning is what this could mean for FP10 if it becomes closely tied to the ECF. What happens when funds for frontier research (except for the European Research Council) are combined with the Competitiveness Fund, which explicitly excludes basic science? If adopted, this would represent a profound shift away from the principle that has underpinned European progress for decades: the insight, first articulated by Vannevar Bush, that basic science is the engine of technological and societal advancement.

A call to action

The path Europe is now taking is risky. The continent must urgently increase investment in fundamental research and strengthen the mechanisms that transfer knowledge from universities to society and industry. Only by doing so can we remain among the world’s leading regions.

Otherwise, Europe risks becoming a mere consumer of technologies developed elsewhere, losing not only its innovative edge but also its ability to shape the future.

Basic science is not a luxury. It is the infrastructure of progress, the invisible foundation on which innovation, prosperity and societal resilience are built.

Gregor Majdič is rector of the University of Ljubljana.