How to de Americanize global science

For decades, the United States has been a great benefactor of global sciences. Last year, the US National Health Institutes (NIH) awarded hundreds of scholarships to researchers outside the country. In 2022–23, the country provided about 42% of the total assistance of the Donor Global Health Administration and about 16% of the World Health Organization Financing (WHO). During the Coid-19 pandemic, he went bankrupt with quite a share in a global effort for a public vaccine.

Since the current US administration seeks drastic reduction to exploration of financing at home and abroad, the danger of so much addiction to one nation becomes clear. My own projects are among those at risk.

I am headquartered in Lisbon, where I have been working in pre -club and clinical studies since 2020, several cancer therapies in collaboration with pharmaceutical companies and researchers in the UK. Now that our American partners (who brought the biggest share) are fighting for funds insurance, all these projects are threatened.

Fresh approach is needed to prevent further shocks – changes in management, wars, natural disasters – from undercoming basic global studies and education.

Turmoil at the American Scientific Academy while Trump reduces the release of force

For starters, more countries have to provide more funds. The richer states should increase their share of contributions to the initiatives of those, of which he has benefited, such as those who are on pandemic willingness. Programs like Horizon Europe should arrange resources with multilateral initiatives. His ‘cancer mission’, which includes cooperation with Canada, is encouraging an example. By enabling various research projects on cancer, the program is intended improve the life of more than 3 million people by 2030.. Future initiatives should include a higher diversity of stakeholders.

Nations with lower income, such as Nigeria and South Africa, could be convinced that they contribute more to initiatives such as the global Fund for the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, if they were influenced by the impact on how money was spent. (In October 2024, the United States secured about 36% of promises and approximately 33% of the funds allocated with a global fund.) In fact, a permanent global research funding initiative could provide emergency short -term cooperation resources that were impaired geopolitical events.

Generally, those who provide the most funds have the greatest impact on priorities and programs. Decision -making and exploring management must instead be shared more evenly between nations, and research should be evaluated in ways that are not so dependent on one nation.

AND Research global council It already coordinates transnational funding and politics among dozens of national science funding agencies, although, as a voluntary organization, it cannot impose standards. Lessons can also be learned from the European Research Council (ERC) Multilingual peer -paired panelspilotted during pandemic Coid-19. Here, reviewers from several countries can join the meetings remotely. And there is a cooperation between the decentralized Ethics Committee and the Ethics Committee of individual countries, ensuring that estimates are aligned with national laws and regulations.

All of these must be supported by more resilient joint databases and platforms for research management.