Europe launches program to lure scientists away from the US

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scale and Intent of the Program

  • Many see the €500M (2025–2027) as symbolically positive but financially trivial relative to US and EU-wide R&D budgets; some call it “grandstanding” or “1% of what’s needed.”
  • Others stress it’s an incremental pot specifically for attracting external scientists (mainly from the US), not the entire EU research budget.
  • A recurring view: any net gain for Europe will mostly come from US self-sabotage (cuts and hostility to science), not from the generosity of EU politicians.

US vs EU Research Ecosystems

  • Several argue the US still offers more opportunities: easier access to top universities, more funding, clearer career paths, and a vast industry “plan B” for academics.
  • Counterpoint: US advantages are narrowing as funding is cut and politics turn anti-science; Europe may look relatively more attractive for the next generation.
  • Disagreement over competitiveness: some claim EU academia is easier to access but sparser in top talent; others say faculty jobs in Europe are actually harder and more localist, with a very hierarchical system.

Language, Integration, and Bureaucracy

  • One side: English is the de facto working language in much of EU research and IT; many report never needing local languages at work.
  • Other side: outside a few countries (e.g., Netherlands), local language is essential for housing, bureaucracy, healthcare, and social life; non‑English admin and resistance from staff are common.
  • Bureaucracy is widely described as heavy; some contrast it unfavorably with the US, despite Europe’s better social safety nets.

Compensation, Incentives, and Tax

  • Strong criticism that Europe “does everything except pay up”: academic salaries in some countries are described as barely livable, prompting brain drain to US industry.
  • Separate Norway-focused thread: ERC headhunting there is praised, but Norway’s wealth tax on (partly) unrealized equity is seen by some as a serious deterrent to entrepreneurial scientists; others compare it to US property tax or argue founders can still cope.

Geopolitics and Fairness

  • One commenter contrasts generous offers to US scientists with expulsions of Russian CERN-affiliated scientists and only temporary, now-winding-down protections for Ukrainian researchers, calling this discriminatory.
  • Replies justify restrictions on Russian institutions as a response to the invasion, while acknowledging the collateral harm to anti‑war individuals.

Broader Themes

  • Debate over whether private investment alone can sustain foundational research; several defend EU-style public funding for things like particle colliders.
  • Multiple comments highlight that luring scientists isn’t only about money: ideological interference, immigration risk, and quality of life in the US vs EU weigh heavily.
  • Meta-discussion criticizes using ChatGPT outputs as if they were primary sources, stressing the need to verify numbers from official statistics.