A number of?European universities have recently announced that they will welcome scientists from the US, some even stating that they will set aside specific positions for them.

There is no doubt that these actions are motivated by genuine concern. Universities might also want to steal a march in the academic labour market and benefit from a US brain drain.

KU Leuven is getting a lot of questions about this as well. Not directly from American scientists because they are not yet looking for jobs in Europe on a massive scale. The questions come from the media, who want to know why an international top university like ours does not immediately pull out all stops to create jobs for talented US scientists.

With us, there are three main reasons. First, almost half of the world population lives in countries where academic freedom is much more restricted. Second, people in the Global South are the first victims of Trump¡¯s policy. And, third, the affected American universities are often our direct partners, and we don¡¯t want to hamper them by openly headhunting their talented staff members.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

In the US, research on gender, climate change, infectious diseases and vaccination policies is now the target of political interference and censorship. The budget cuts and restrictions imposed on the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Science Foundation are rash and radical. And immigration restrictions are making it harder for international scientists to continue to work in the US.

The Department of Education ¨C which Trump has ¨C is investigating 45 universities, including Yale and Duke, for allegedly violating civil rights by offering race-based scholarships and programmes. It is one of the White House¡¯s many attempts to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programmes. As a result, many research funders, universities and scientists are subjecting themselves to self-censorship.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

This situation is scarcely conceivable, and it also impacts Europe¡¯s research funding and collaboration with universities in the US. This threat to independent scientific activity cannot, however, take our attention away from the people in other countries who have, for many years, been fighting for freedom of speech, academic freedom and scientific integrity and who remain in far worse situations than our US colleagues.

Each year, the Friedrich-Alexander University (FAU) and V-DEM Institute publish the . This assesses scientists¡¯ level of freedom to determine their research topics and teaching agendas, to communicate their research results and ideas, and to take a position on political issues. Universities¡¯ level of autonomy is also taken into account.

Belgium is in the top three but, in 2023, only 14.1 per cent of the world population lived in countries with virtually unrestricted academic freedom. Meanwhile, 45.5 per cent lived in countries ¨C including large ones, such as China, India and Russia ¨C where academic freedom is restricted considerably. This ratio has not improved over the past 50 years. Helping American scientists exclusively would generate disbelief and disappointment among talented researchers from such countries.

The first and most important victims of Trump¡¯s decisions live and work in the Global South. The sudden discontinuation of USAID programmes ¨C some of which drive science and innovation ¨C has had a devastating effect on Africa in particular. USAID-supported HIV programmes have been scrapped in countries such as Nigeria and Uganda. Hospitals have been closed and treatments interrupted, putting millions of lives at risk. Budget cuts have forced the suspension of programmes combating malaria, promoting mother and child welfare, and supporting cancer research. In Zimbabwe, research programmes combatting tuberculosis have also been discontinued. Decades of progress in healthcare and local scientific research is being undermined.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Researchers working on USAID-funded projects at African universities are being laid off in droves. And universities that depended on USAID for international partnerships ¨C many of which already struggle with structural underfunding ¨C now have diminished access to resources and expertise.

The heightened concern for the fate of scientists in the US is understandable and appropriate but why are we ignoring this broader global context? Should we not prioritise supporting the scientists most at risk?

After all, a US exodus is still far from being a reality. At this stage, we should communicate our support to our American partner universities and strengthen our collaborations with them where possible. Drawing their talented scientists away will not help them.

Of course, KU Leuven always welcomes top academics. That warm welcome goes out to talented people in the US ¨C but it also goes out to those everywhere else.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Welcoming people no matter where they come from is a policy that the US has modelled for many decades. It has resulted in the US¡¯ unparalleled potential for research and innovation: potential that Trump is so foolishly putting at risk.

is rector of KU Leuven. This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in the Flemish newspaper?De Morgen.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ