SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " innovation ecosystem " 10 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Science on Target: Q3 Publications from our Innovation Ecosystem
Antisense Oligonucleotide Tofersen Distribution in the Central Nervous System of SOD1-ALS Autopsy Tissue Donors. Guise AJ, Sellon MT, Roemer SF, Monine M, Comfort Harris NT, […] Plowey ED. JAMA Neurol. 2026 Jul 6:e262195. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2026.2195. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 42406382; PMCID: PMC13338845. Using human 3D organoid models to gain mechanistic insight in motor neuron […]
The VA could help America win the biotechnology race with China
“Together, HHS, the VA, and the DOD form a strong American innovation ecosystem — one that China and other competitors cannot easily replicate,” writes former VA Secretary David Shulkin.
BioSTL Builds Gateway for U.K.'s National Health Service Innovators with St. Louis as Launch Point into U.S. Market
BioSTL Global, the international arm of BioSTL, the backbone of the region's bio-innovation ecosystem, has reached an agreement with the innovation network commissioned by the U.K.'s National Health Service (NHS) that promises to attract new companies to St. Louis' nationally recognized healthcare industry.
How Carle Illinois College of Medicine is changing the health care innovation ecosystem
Carle Illinois College of Medicine blends medicine, engineering and AI to speed health care innovation from concept to patient care.
How Carle Illinois College of Medicine is changing the health care innovation ecosystem
Carle Illinois College of Medicine blends medicine, engineering and AI to speed health care innovation from concept to patient care.
The Women’s Health Innovation Radar:
Advancing women’s health requires not only scientific progress, but an innovation ecosystem capable of translating discovery into evidence, technologies and scalable solutions that improve outcomes for women globally. Yet many high-impact conditions continue to receive insufficient targeted innovation. The Women’s Health Innovation Radar maps activity from research funding and scientific publications to clinical trials and product development across 10 high-impact conditions, highlighting where innovation is advancing and where critical gaps persist. It offers a foundation to guide research priorities, inform policy decisions and mobilize investment towards areas of unmet need, helping to ensure that scientific advances translate into meaningful impact for women worldwide.
The Women’s Health Innovation Radar:
Advancing women’s health requires not only scientific progress, but an innovation ecosystem capable of translating discovery into evidence, technologies and scalable solutions that improve outcomes for women globally. Yet many high-impact conditions continue to receive insufficient targeted innovation. The Women’s Health Innovation Radar maps activity from research funding and scientific publications to clinical trials and product development across 10 high-impact conditions, highlighting where innovation is advancing and where critical gaps persist. It offers a foundation to guide research priorities, inform policy decisions and mobilize investment towards areas of unmet need, helping to ensure that scientific advances translate into meaningful impact for women worldwide.
Viewpoint: FP10 should remain open, excellent and secure
Europe is right to worry about research security. Foreign interference is real. So is the misuse of sensitive knowledge. Universities working in sensitive areas such as AI, quantum, semiconductors and advanced materials cannot afford to ignore the geopolitical environment around them.But Europe is in danger of drawing the wrong conclusion, one that would increase, not reduce, its strategic vulnerabilities.If the EU applies an “EU preference” logic to the next Framework Programme for research and innovation (FP10), it will weaken one of its greatest strategic assets: a research system built on openness, excellence and international collaboration. In the name of security, Europe could end up advancing science more slowly, innovating less effectively and making itself less attractive to global talent and partners in advanced science and technology.That would be a serious mistake.The EU preference included in Article 10 of the proposed European Competitiveness Fund may make sense in some industrial or deployment contexts, but is far harder to justify when applied to collaborative research in advanced science and technology, where excellence and global connectivity are crucial. Research is not procurement. It does not thrive when isolated. It advances through access to the best ideas, the best people, the best facilities and the best data, wherever they are found. This is why FP10 should not simply absorb industrial policy logic by default. Doing so would risk importing instruments that are ill-suited to research and that ultimately increase vulnerability rather than resilience.For universities of science and technology, the issue is especially acute. These institutions sit at the frontier of knowledge and technology creation in the very fields Europe sees as critical for its future competitiveness and resilience. They know better than most that security risks are real. But they also know that openness and security are not opposites. In practice, they have to be made to work together. Research security is not about closing doors. It is about building resilience through collective responsibility, trust, proportionate safeguards and better governance. That is a fundamentally different approach from default restriction.The risks of non-collaborationThe real danger in the current debate is that Europe talks too much about the risks of collaboration and not enough about the risks of non-collaboration. Those risks are strategic too. Cut researchers off from international networks and Europe loses access to knowledge, data, infrastructures and talent. Slow down global collaboration in critical technologies and Europe slows down its own progress on cutting-edge science. Make participation rules unpredictable and Europe weakens its attractiveness to researchers and investors alike.In other words, over-restricting collaboration will create strategic vulnerabilities, particularly in advanced science and technologies.This point is often underestimated in policy discussions that frame openness mainly as a value to be defended. Europe’s scientific strength, technological development and long-term competitiveness depend on remaining connected to the best research ecosystems in the world. For a continent that wants to accelerate deep tech, strengthen industrial capacity and reduce strategic dependencies, weakening the excellence base would be self-defeating. That does not mean ignoring risk. Quite the opposite. Universities are already strengthening due diligence, internal governance, awareness-raising, screening procedures and compliance support. Across Europe, institutions are working to manage risks linked to foreign interference, sanctions, export controls and the misuse of research. The right response is not complacency. It is better risk management. But that means targeted, evidence-based and proportionate measures, not blunt top-down restrictions with wide spillover effects. In the daily reality of universities, openness and restriction often coexist. The real challenge is how to apply safeguards without sliding into securitisation that damages academic freedom, open science and international cooperation. Restrict partners, not nationsMore restrictive treatment of collaborators from European Economic Area members Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, or from Switzerland and the UK, is strategically very difficult to justify. These are deeply embedded partners in Europe’s research and innovation ecosystem. Beyond that, Europe should still resist default exclusion and instead rely on case-by-case assessment. The relevant question is not nationality in the abstract. It is the actual risk profile of a collaboration: the institution, the affiliations, the field, the knowledge involved, the intended use and the safeguards available. Screening should focus on institutions and affiliations rather than nationality alone. Related articlesParliament ‘misreads’ link between Horizon Europe and ECF, Commission official saysFrustration grows at governance gap in next Horizon EuropeIf EU preference logic is imported into research without careful calibration, the likely result is a chilling effect. Researchers may step back from legitimate and beneficial collaboration, even where risks are manageable. International partners may see Europe as less predictable. And Europe may end up undermining the very excellence base it needs to compete, scale up and lead in strategic technologies, thereby increasing its dependence on others.FP10 should do the opposite. It should remain open by default, with restrictions used only exceptionally, and then on the basis of clear evidence. It should integrate research security into open science and research integrity frameworks, not set them against each other. And it should recognise that academic freedom, scientific excellence and responsible international collaboration are not obstacles to Europe’s security, they are part of it. Europe needs stronger tools to protect itself. But it also needs the discipline to avoid measures that would weaken it and increase its strategic vulnerabilities in the process. In FP10, that means staying open, excellent and secure.Louise Drogoul is senior advisor for innovation and sustainability at the Cesaer university association.
International science cooperation must go on, say research leaders
Science leaders in Europe and Canada say international cooperation must go on amid geopolitical turmoil. At the same time, Europe and like-minded countries should continue to enhance and diversify international partnerships, a Science|Business conference hears. Hugh Brady, president of Imperial College London, told delegates that Europe’s response to the current geopolitical climate should be to “diversify in terms of research partnerships and build resilience and scale into our own system.”A first priority should be for the EU to sort out the scope of the upcoming European Competitiveness Fund and ensure that, together with the next iteration of Horizon Europe, it can drive the development and scale up of new technologies. The EU and the countries associated to the Horizon Europe programme represent “the world's most successful research innovation ecosystem,” Brady said. In order to mitigate the negative effects of shifting geopolitics, the EU together with the UK, Switzerland, Canada, South Korea and others should talk about “building resilience” and address their own “regional needs,” he added. Responding to TrumpUnder Donald Trump’s leadership, the US government has slashed science budgets and shut down international research programmes. Nearly 8,000 grants at the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation have been frozen or terminated. Courts have overturned most of these cancellations, but the disruption caused remains significant. While Europe may persuade a few thousand disgruntled scientists to move across the ocean to work on topics that have been de-funded in the US, it’s unclear what should happen next with transatlantic scientific cooperation more broadly.“Now is the time for us to show [US researchers] our support as much as we can,” Brady said.The European Research Council (ERC), the EU’s basic science funder, has seen a surge in applicants from the US. According its latest data, US-based researchers submitted 347 proposals to the last three big funding rounds, up from 158 in the previous set of calls. The European Commission has also launched a €22.5 million pilot call in 2025 for the Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions, the EU’s researcher training scheme. It plans to extend this support with a €51.25 million call in 2027 as part of the Choose Europe initiative, which is intended to make the continent a more attractive place to pursue a career in research. Related articlesData corner: US researchers are choosing EuropeEU-India deal highlights growing alignment on technology policyMeanwhile, in the private non-profit sector, the Volkswagen Foundation is experimenting with a new type of grant that would allow US researchers to split their time between the US and Germany. While these schemes are useful, Europe should not bet on an exodus of scientists from the US. “The idea that we might all see them flocking over to Europe is naïve and counterproductive,” said Maria Leptin, president of the ERC, also speaking at the Science|Business conference on February 5. “We need research in the US to be as healthy as possible. I really admire those who are staying there with a will to fight and an optimism that the world will turn into a better place again,” Leptin said. Preserving dataDespite political disruption, academics have found ways to continue cooperating and sharing research data. Leslie Weir, president of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions and Canada’s national librarian, said the US cuts have raised concerns about research data security, after ideologically sensitive databases were limited or deleted by the Trump administration. But international organisations teamed up to ensure that the data is not lost. “It's interesting to see that researchers and libraries across North America are collaborating to make sure that data at risk is duplicated elsewhere outside [the US],” Weir said.
UChicago Welcomes Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy to Hyde Park Labs - Polsky Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation
New presence in the UChicago Science Incubator expands opportunities for high school STEM students and supports the South Side innovation ecosystem The Polsky Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the University of Chicago announced today that the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (IMSA) will establish its first Chicago-based office at Hyde Park Labs, located within