SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Eastern Europe " 20 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Sign in to save shuffle history.
Polish scientists and students rally in campaign for better conditions
Polish scientists and students have been flooding social media with calls on the government to raise research and development spending as part of 3% for Science, 100% for Poland, a campaign born earlier this month out of frustration with chronic underfunding in the academic sector. On May 27, thousands took the slogan on to the streets.The EU has been trying to convince member states to raise their R&D expenditures to 3% of GDP for more than two decades, but the idea has never gained traction in capitals. Finance ministers were too busy plugging budget holes created in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, then the Covid pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and now the war in Iran.Critics say that countries missed or ignored the target because it is voluntary, but also because research communities have rarely raised their voice to put pressure on national governments. The European Commission hopes to make the target legally binding in the upcoming European Research Area Act, an EU-wide regulation that should be announced by the end of the year. Academia in Poland has been faced with a funding crisis for years, often leaving its members with no other choice but to work abroad in order to access better resources, or leave the sector altogether in the hope of earning a decent living. The risk, in the long-term, is that brain drain stifles local innovation capacity and technological competitiveness.In just a few weeks, the movement rallied nationwide support, including from major academic bodies and trade unions such as the Conference of Rectors of Academic Schools in Poland and the Presidium of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Its public petition collected more than 23,000 signatures. On May 27, it formed the first large protest for science in Poland, gathering thousands of people in front of the parliament building in Warsaw.Ilona Uryga-Bugajska, representative of the Marie Curie Alumni Association Poland Chapter, was there. “The protest was peaceful, with no incidents reported, and the entire event took place in a respectful and calm atmosphere,” she said. Banners she saw in the crowd carried slogans such as “A little longer and I’ll be teaching in a supermarket,” “National culture, starvation salary,” “Stop the destruction of science,” “Passion will not pay the rent,” “Without action, don’t expect a better future,” and “Pull science out of the hole.” She also observed a strong presence of young researchers, who are on the frontline of Poland’s academic crisis.“Academics are usually people who prefer discussion, analysis, dialogue and compromise. We are not a group that protests easily,” said Katarzyna Marzec, professor at the Faculty of Pharmacy of the Jagiellonian University Medical College and AGH University of Krakow, who also took part. “But many of us feel that we have been pushed against the wall.”Aleksandra Rutkowska, translational neuroscientist and research group leader at the Medical University of Gdańsk, agreed. “Frustration in the scientific community is very high,” she said. “Science is often used politically as a symbol of innovation and modernity, but the everyday reality inside many institutions is much more difficult. There is a large gap between the public narrative and the actual condition of the sector.”Maria Wiktoria Górna, head of the structural biology group at the University of Warsaw and one of the organisers of the movement, told Science|Business that the campaign would continue without proven results. This might involve another strike in the autumn, she said. “Empty promises are not enough by now.”Campaign demandsAccording to Uryga-Bugajska, the organisers officially presented their demands and concerns to representatives of the government present at the event. These included Marek Gzik, deputy minister of science and higher education, and Karolina Zioło-Pużuk, secretary of state of that same ministry.The headline demand, for the government to increase national spending on R&D to 3% of GDP by 2030, should be within Poland’s economic capacity, Rutkowska said. “The real question is whether there is genuine long-term political commitment to treating science as a strategic priority rather than a slogan.”In 2024, R&D expenditure in Poland stood at 1.41% of GDP, which is slightly above the average for central and eastern Europe, with countries such as Czechia recording 1.82%, Hungary 1.31% and Romania 0.46%. However, it falls noticeably short of the EU average of 2.24%, which just a handful of countries exceed, including Germany, Belgium and Sweden.Campaigners are also asking for fair wages for scientific staff, including PhD stipends and junior academic salaries, which are widely considered uncompetitive. Starting doctoral scholarships amount to some €843 gross per month, when the statutory minimum wage stands at €1,135. By pushing early-career researchers out of Poland, growing precarity has caused a generational gap in the academic workforce, with just 25% of lecturers aged under 40. In this context, the movement fears that scientific careers could soon be accessible to a privileged minority only.Grzegorz Spólnik is a case in point. After 15 years working in mass spectrometry at the Polish Academy of Sciences, he decided to leave partly “to earn enough money to live a normal life,” he said. “At that time, my earnings were similar to those of people working in grocery shops, and the work-life balance is something that does not exist in science, or is very hard to achieve.”Now a senior field service engineer for Polish laboratory equipment supplier Bioanalytic, he would consider going back to research, “but never in the public sector, maybe some start-up or a big private company with ambitious R&D.”The campaigners want to see more support for basic research and have called for €236 million to be added to the budget of the National Science Centre (NCN) in 2027 so that the average grant application success rate does not fall below 25%.“At the protest, there was a banner I particularly liked: ‘NCN is not a lottery.’ Unfortunately, for many researchers, it increasingly feels exactly like one,” Marzec said. “Personally, I am one of the lucky ones. I work at two of the strongest institutions in the country, where the research standards are very high. I know that in many other institutions, the situation is much worse and obtaining funding for research at an early-career stage is becoming nearly impossible.”Rutkowska also considers herself fortunate. After studying abroad and holding a postdoctoral position, she returned to Poland, where her pay was supported through an NCN-funded project linked to the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions. “This also made me very aware that good research conditions in Poland often depend on external competitive funding rather than on stable support from the system itself,” she said.Long-term strategyBeyond the lack of funds for both salaries and grants, scientists believe that the issue is structural. “The biggest problem at the moment is the complete lack of a clear long-term strategy for the development of science and research from the current government,” Marzec said. “Everything ends with declarations and promises that are never truly followed by concrete actions or structural reforms.”Rutkowska agreed, citing a lack of infrastructure, continuity and long-term institutional support.“Running a research group in Poland often means functioning as an entire institution at once,” she said. “I am a principal investigator, a mentor, a recruiter, a project administrator and, when needed, still someone who returns to the lab bench to help with experiments,” she went on. “This creates a large hidden workload that takes time and energy away from actual science. At times, it feels as though scientists are no longer expecting extra help; we simply hope the system will stop creating additional obstacles that make research unnecessarily difficult.”Related articlesStrategic thinking: Germany funds joint research with Poland and FrancePoland to transfer €30M of regional funds to boost Horizon Europe participationPoland is funding fewer basic research grants as high inflation hitsIn short, “academics are expected to teach, publish papers, apply for grants and conduct high-quality research, while funding and salaries remain very limited,” said Uryga-Bugajska, who returned to her home country after 13 years in the UK.According to Marzec, another issue is the way that research institutions are evaluated. Previously, this took place every four years, with a clear differentiation between stronger and weaker institutions. “The current government, perhaps to avoid political backlash, effectively concluded that everyone is doing well, so in practice no meaningful evaluation took place,” she said.But in her view, “some form of serious assessment is necessary” to ensure the excellence and international competitiveness of Polish institutions, and to determine how to best use public resources and where institutional structures need reform. “Some institutions may need to rethink hiring practices in order to attract ambitious young researchers who are capable of obtaining competitive grants and building internationally visible research groups.” Rutkowska has already had to adapt. “When hiring PhD students, I often have to combine different funding sources creatively to make positions attractive enough for talented people to stay in science,” she said. “Many young researchers do not see a stable future in academia in Poland, and that is deeply worrying.”
U.S. and U.K. soldiers participate in Armed Forces Entertainment All-Star Soccer Tour
U.S. Army Soldiers assigned to V Corps subordinate units, Scottish soldiers from the U.K. army and professional soccer players touring with the Armed Forces Entertainment Heat Wave Summer Series, pose for a group photo after completing the scrimmage game during the All-Star Soccer Tour clinic at Tapa Army Base, Estonia, July 9, 2026. The AFE summer programming brings world-class entertainers, athletes, and performers overseas to connect with service members stationed around the globe. By providing unique opportunities for Soldiers to engage with professional talent, build morale, and share memorable experiences away from the mission, the program strengthens the resilience, camaraderie and sense of community that are essential to the military. V Corps is the U.S. Army's only forward-deployed corps, serving as the senior tactical headquarters for Army forces in Eastern Europe to deter conflict and provide combat-ready forces alongside our NATO allies. V Corps is operationalizing and expanding the Eastern Flank Deterrence Initiative with Allies, rapidly integrating emerging technologies into training and tactical plans. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Aaron Kaczur, 196th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment)
War, energy and politics hamper Eastern Europe's efforts to keep deficits in check
The Romanian government's political implosion this week in a no-confidence vote has cast a shadow over a region grappling with rising debt, defence spending and energy costs that are unsettling investors and ratings agencies alike.
Berkshire Hathaway Specialty launches in Poland
U.S.-based Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Company has entered the Polish market, Coverager reported. The company offers a wide range of commercial insurance across Central and Eastern Europe…
In Retrospect: Poland, Russia, Europe
In April I spent a few days with Zryw, a Polish non-profit organization that recruits young people to enter politics and public life. Their aim is to build a new generation of civic leaders in Poland. I’ve followed their evolution from the beginning; my son is one of the founders. (“Zryw” means “impulse” or “burst of speed” in Polish). Julie Chmielewska, one of Zryw’s leaders, interviewed me at the event. Here is the conversation, lightly edited for grammar and context: Julia Chmielewska: Assuming that culture shapes institutions, could we conclude that some cultures are more prone to authoritarianism? Anne Applebaum: I don’t think so. Every culture, every nation, and every country has the potential for change. When we look at history, we can see that nations do change. Poland has changed, for example, from the 1980s to today. There’s a completely different mentality here than the one I encountered when I first visited, in 1988. The current generation sees the world through a different frame. So no, I don’t believe that certain nations are doomed to authoritarianism, or to anything. Of course, there are political and cultural traditions, but they can always be challenged. JC: So do you think there’s something intrinsic in human nature that pushes people to democracy, freedom? AA: I think there is something in human nature, a deep instinct, that pushes people towards freedom, yes. People who live in authoritarian countries – and I’ve heard this from them over and over again – sooner or later find themselves angered by a feeling of helplessness. They can see the unfairness of crooked courts, irrational political decisions. They naturally dislike the fact that somebody has all the power while they have none. In those circumstances, people who have no political background at all sometimes are politicized just by that frustration. I’m thinking of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, for example, who was a Belarusian housewife, until the circumstances of her husband’s arrest forced her to become a politician. I met a woman who is a Uyghur from China, and who had come to live in Turkey. After several of her family members were arrested, she too was propelled into a political role. These kinds of experiences make people interested in democracy or political reform, even if they thought they didn’t care. I also think that the opposite is true: some people instinctively prefer homogeneity, order, hierarchy. They don’t like the confrontation of opinions or the noise of debate, and they lean towards a single leader or a unified regime. I think that most of modern history is shaped by the clash between those two different sides of human nature. JC: Which force do you find more powerful today? AA: I think they both have a lot of power and there’s no way of predicting who wins. Even in countries that seem very shut off or stuck in an authoritarian system can change. We’ve seen that happen. And vice versa, I think democracies can also begin to fail and slide into authoritarianism. So it’s very important not to be complacent in either direction. JC: I want to go into your history and your experiences. You’ve lived in Russia during a time of incredible change in the late 80s, and then you came back to do research in post-Soviet Russia. AA: I was a student in Russia just before the collapse of the Soviet Union. I then traveled and worked there extensively in the 1990s, and I met people who really were full of hope. They hoped that Russia could become a democracy, or at least a place that guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of the press. These weren’t ideas that came from Washington. Although now the narrative in the Kremlin is different, I met many people who were working towards exactly that kind of transformation. A friend of mine ran a series of seminars – once a year, and then later several times a year, in cities all over Russia – designed to get people to discuss politics in new ways. She invited young politicians and journalists, as well as foreigners. I went to many of them, in Moscow as well as Volgograd and Novosibirsk. Over two decades, hundreds of people came to these seminars, and all of them wanted Russia to be different. I remain convinced that many Russians still want Russia to be different. It’s just that the old system, in the form of Putin, a representative of that system, returned. The KGB reimposed their power. And this wasn’t because of something to do with culture, this was to do with money and politics, and who was in charge. JC: You’ve partially answered my question... I wanted to ask whether that excitement of the 1990s was an exception from the Russian historical norm which has been rather authoritarian? AA: Of course, if you look at the history of Russia since the 18th century, there have always been liberal groups, reformers and revolutionaries. There were the Decembrists, in the early 19th century, and the rural populists later on, who tried to organize the peasantry. A significant group of liberal Russians appeared at the turn of the 20th century, people like the father of the writer Vladimir Nabokov, who was a Russian politician before the revolution. These groups were small in number, but sometimes had a broader significance. The Russian dissident movement in the 1950s and 1960s actually invented the modern human rights movement. It was their idea to hold the leaders of the Soviet Union accountable for the language they used, to remind them of the treaties they had signed and the promised they had made. They created the Helsinki group, for example, that held Soviet leadership to the language of the Helsinki Treaty, which formally ended the Second World War and which contained guarantees of human rights, at least on paper. That idea spread to Eastern Europe, and similar tactics were used here in Poland. (Benjamin Nathans recently wrote a great book about the Soviet dissidents, To the Success of Our Hopeless Cause) JC: But seemingly, even if they do ever get power, they could never hold on to it. AA: We don’t know, because they have never really had power. But in any case, we also don’t know what will happen in the future. There is no reason to assume that Russia will forever be condemned to totalitarianism. Even during the first fifteen years of Putin’s regime there was some form of democratic politics. Only when the full-scale war began did he bring everything to an end: he shut down all remaining independent organizations and killed his most important opponent, Alexi Navalny. But does that mean he is popular, that he enjoys legitimacy? Even now, we don’t really know what Russians think about him, or about the war. There is no way of doing real polling in Russia because nobody will answer an independent pollster over the phone. JC: Do you think that the flock of young people, especially young men, who fled Russia after the start of the war represent a continuation of liberal movements that refuse to partake in the authoritarian state, or do you think they are moving for the sake of self-preservation – “I don’t want to go to the army, so I leave”? AA: I’m sure it’s both. I actually know many people who left Russia for political reasons either in the very last years before the war, or else just after the war began. JC: And do you see a change in the young generation versus the old one that have fled? AA: It’s hard for me to say because the people who I know were mostly already politicized. I do know some younger people who left, but most of them were already either active in the opposition, or working as journalists. Many of them very self-consciously think of themselves as maintaining Russian culture abroad, just as in the 20th century the Soviet dissidents or the anti-communist White Russians once thought of themselves as people who maintained the true Russian culture, outside of Bolshevik Russia. JC: Let’s move on to Poland. One of your first experiences with Poland was reporting on Margaret Thatcher’s first state visit, in the autumn of 1988. You followed her around the farmers’ market. AA: She was making a symbolic gesture. She wanted to welcome free markets, but the only one she could really visit was the farmers’ market at Hala Mirowska. JC: And I want to talk about this area because today you can look out of any window in that district, Mirów, and see rows and rows of skyscrapers. How does it feel to see a country built from the ground in such a short time, both politically and economically? AA: You know, when you’re living in a period of dramatic change, it’s always hard to know whether the change is positive or negative. The transformation in Poland created winners and losers, as well as new classes of people, new political movements of different kinds. At the time, it sometimes just felt like turbulence. Now, we can look back at the 1990s and early 2000s in Poland and see in retrospect that the country was headed in towards prosperity and European integration. In around 2009 or 2010, I remember speaking to a woman who worked cleaning government offices, and who asked me if her daughter should study in Amsterdam or in London. This seemed to me to be a real transformation, and it happened very fast: within a few years, Poles stopped feeling like second-class Europeans, and a generation of younger Poles appeared who had no qualms about crossing borders. JC: We again live in turbulent times. Do you think we’re heading towards positive outcomes? AA: I can’t make predictions, because everything that happens tomorrow depends on what people do today. Also, history doesn’t have a trajectory. It doesn’t move in a particular direction. You only think it does afterwards. As I said, you can look afterwards at Poland in the 1990s and you could say this was a period of great progress. But not everybody at the time saw that. Sometimes people are very wrong about a given country’s trajectory. I remember people writing about Ukraine in the 1990s, about how dangerous it was that Ukraine was independent, that this was going to be an anti-semitic state, that Ukrainian nationalism was going to come back... and although you can say many bad things about Ukraine, the country made many bad choices, actually it became a pretty tolerant state which now has a Jewish president and until recently a Muslim defense minister. JC: In the 1990s Poland’s and Ukraine’s GDP were roughly similar. Ukraine was even a bit richer. So the starting point was similar for both of these countries, but they’ve turned out very, very differently. Even if we stop in 2014. Why do you think Ukraine “chose East”? Was it external influence? AA: No, I think Ukraine was in a different position. First of all, central and eastern Ukraine had been part of the Soviet Union since the 1920s, and had therefore experienced a longer period of occupation, repression, Sovietization and even Russification. Ukraine did not have, as Poland did, an alternative elite: a large cadre of economists and politicians, who already had some experience in opposition politics and in independent thinking. In Poland, the transformative finance minister, Leszek Balcerowicz, had already thought about how an economy might be decentralized before he took office. We can argue about how successful he was, but at least he was prepared to try something new. In Ukraine, people weren’t prepared. For one, there hadn’t been much space even for an illegal opposition in the previous couple of decades. Ukraine was also in many ways still emerging from colonial occupation. For the previous couple of centuries, many of the most capable Ukrainians had moved to Russia, and the first generation of leaders in independent Ukraine tended to be former Soviet apparatchiks. They didn’t immediately seek to become closer to western Europe. Instead, they looked for some kind of economic and political “third way” and an accomodation with Russia. Ukraine became stuck in this position, half-in, half-out and became pretty profoundly corrupt. JC: The Polish alternative elite had a vision of where they wanted the country to go. I think the general perception now is that this vision ends with the next election, right? Is this a natural process of gaining power? AA: Their vision, and it was shared by the time by politicians who now call themselves both left and right, was that Poland should join the EU and NATO, as fast as possible. My husband (Radek Sikorski) was in the very first government that said it wanted to join NATO. At the time this was taken very badly in Washington: the demand for NATO membership absolutely came from Poland, not from the US. But even then, in the early 1990s, many Poles already understood that the Russian sphere of influence would grow once again, that it was important to become part of the transatlantic alliance and an integrated Europe as fast as possible: NATO, the EU, the Council of Europe, all of the trading and security alliances. That consensus lasted through several different governments and over many years, even governments containing former communists. For twenty years, right, left and center disagreed about many things, but they all agreed on the direction that the country should go. In retrospect, that consensus created the basis for prosperity in Poland. JC: And regarding the Polish-Ukrainian relations. We know that antagonisms, e.g. the myth of Wołyń [a massacre of Poles that took place in what is now Western Ukraine, in 1943] are increasingly used in Polish political discourse today. In Ukraine, nationalist historians make heroes out of UPA, the Ukrainian revolutionary army, which is held responsible for this tragedy. Where do you see a start for burying the hatchet? Is the reconciliation of our nations possible? AA: So here’s a strange thing: For more than a decade after they both gained independence, Poland and Ukraine participated in a number of projects that were designed to solve exactly these kinds of Polish-Ukrainian differences. Books were published that were jointly written by Polish and Ukrainian historians, monuments were built. These projects were successful: If you’d asked me this question in 2010, I would have said that there are no real historical issues between Poland and Ukraine, that the two countries had mostly reconciled. For a number of reasons, this began to shift. In Poland, children and grandchildren of victims of the Wołyń massacre felt their tragedy hadn’t been fully recognized. In Ukraine, nationalist groups wanted the UPA partisans who had fought against the Soviet Union recognized for their heroism, despite the fact that some in this broad and not well-defined group were also linked to Wołyń. In both eastern Poland and western Ukraine, the memory of the ethnic cleansing that took place there in the late 1940s - Poles were moved West, Ukrainians East - to accomodate new borders has left feelings of displacement and bitterness. The wave of Ukrainian immigration, which started before the war, may have provoked some of this. But don’t underestimate the role played by Russia, which has always wanted to create discord between Poland and Ukraine, and pumps out propaganda to that effect in both countries. Vandalism on both sides of the border, damage done to cemeteries and monuments, is sometimes carried out by provacateurs working for Russia, just to create bad feelings. The Polish-Ukrainian conflict also hides a different reality: although there are real grievances and bad memories, the truth is that the biggest tragedies both nations experienced in the twentieth century were inflicted by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. That should unite these two countries, not divide them. JC: This week (19.04.2026 – Ed.) in Hungary we saw that using historical narratives to create grievance has no longer worked. Are you optimistic about the direction after Orban’s loss? AA: The Hungarian election was really important because it shows that people can actually resist powerful, dominant propaganda. The ruling party Fidesz controlled all of the TV, 90% of the newspapers, the constitutional court, the bureaucracy... and yet people had the nerve to vote against it and resist it. It’s also an important election because Hungary created a huge network of well-funded think tanks and foundations that were funding other far right groups and projects. So that loss is going to have a knock-on effect in other places too, maybe even in Poland. JC: What you’ve said about resisting propaganda reminds me of one of the interviews you did about talking to Russians in the post-Soviet era who claimed that people knew that the system was lying. Why do people choose to believe in these regimes anyway? AA: Because it’s useful. Stephen Kotkin, an American historian, once described how people would learn how to “speak Bolshevik”: It was just a language that you needed to use in order to get by in society. If you didn’t talk the way the regime wanted you to talk, then you might have problems, or lose your job, or your kids would not get into university. It was a way of getting along. Communist Poland was similar, at least in the early years. When I was writing a book about the Sovietization of Eastern Europe after World War II, I met a lot of people who wanted to talk a lot about the war, when many of them had done really heroic things. But almost nobody wanted to talk about the decade afterwards, between 1945 and 1956. This was when you had the short period of terror, violence and Polish Stalinism. To stay safe, people felt the need to just go along with what others were saying, or stay out of politics, or use communist jargon without necessarily believing it. I don’t judge them for it, and I wouldn’t describe all of those people as collaborators. It’s easy to feel moral certainty in retrospect, because we know that communism ended. But if you were living in 1949, it might not have been clear to you that communism was going to end. In very repressive societies, maybe about 10% of people who are really evil – collaborators, torturers. Maybe 10% of people are really brave and who find ways to resist. And then around 80% of people have kids, they have parents, they have to have jobs and they’ve had to get through it somehow. Strange though it may sound, I’ve found that the work I did on that book is now very useful in explaining some of what’s going on in the United States today. There are plenty of members of the Republican Party in Congress who know perfectly well that Donald Trump says many things that aren’t true. But they avoid criticizing him because it’s inconvenient, because they would get in trouble, because someone would attack them on the internet. So actually you don’t even need mass terror to get people to conform. JC: Is Gen Z reinventing agency? AA: We’ll see. In any generation you can find groups of people who want agency. If you live in a society that’s unfair, for example where a tiny number of people have captured most of the wealth, then at a certain point people rebel. This is always easier for younger people, who have you have less to lose. The question now is how the internet will affect the relationships between citizens and the state, and how it will change organizations. The “Twitter revolutions” people spoke about as early as 2008-9, mass protests organized online, have often proved to be very superficial. Although you can easily join something just by clicking, the work of creating a real movement requires physical participation. Successful mass movements of the past, for example the Civil Rights movement in the United States, were built by people who had spent many years together. They had participated in non-violent workshops together. They practiced and prepared. Just using the you can get everybody to show up at a certain moment, but then when the protest is broken up, nothing happens. It’s also true that the repressive regimes have more recently learned how to use the internet to undermine leaders and movements. Most of all, they now understand how to make people cynical. The form of propaganda that most modern authoritarians use - and I think the Russians really pioneered this - deploys sneering cynicism. Instead of praising the rulers, the regime propagandists mock the opposition movement leadership for being supposedly corrupt or sexually degenerate, with the goal of undermining any kind of idealism. JC: MAGA grew on the internet? AA: MAGA is a real grassroots movement. They had symbols, red hats, they showed up at rallies. But you’re right that the cynicism, the sarcasm and the distrust that the movement embodies came originally from the internet, and this is different. Fifty years ago, most European political parties had a social base in real organizations, in trade unions for Social Democrats, in church groups for Christian Democrats. As people stopped going to church and as the trade unions became smaller, the social base of these parties disappeared. Now people who wouldn’t have known one another in the past meet on the internet and create new movements, many of which don’t last. JC: Is history ending? Going in stale circles? AA: History never ends. In truth, human beings want contradictory things at the same time: order and freedom, stability and change. These things are never resolved, and when a society swings too far in one direction, people always push it the other way. But each time that happens, the result is different. Certainly it is true that we are now in a period when old philosophers and ideas from the 1930s are undergoing a revival. Carl Schmitt, who was a philosopher who was very influential on the Nazis, is back as an influence on both the far left and the far right, once again inspiring people to think that all politics has to be existential, that all politics is about defining and defeating enemies. In the US, some are also bringing back dominionism, the idea that we need a Christian and not a secular state. It’s also true that we are living through a more fundamental shift. The old left-right divide, which was mostly about the size of the state, is much less important now. Instead, we are arguing about more fundamental things: what are our rights, what protects our freedom. Or how much power do we want to give small elites, versus how much power to give ordinary people. In America a small group of very wealthy people now control information, because they control the social media platforms and AI, which means they determine what people will read and learn. Finding a way to preserve preserve zones of autonomy and independent thinking, this is going to be the main task for the next generation. JC: What is the one book that a person interested in Central Europe should read? AA: You could read my book “Iron Curtain: the Crushing of Eastern Europe” which tells the story of how the Soviet Union imposed its culture on the region. Or read Tim Snyder’s history of the region, “The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus 1569-1999.” And everyone should read “The Captive Mind” by Czesław Miłosz, which describes exactly the phenomenon we were talking about: why do people collaborate? I joined Scott Galloway and the brilliant Fiona Hill in a discussion about the wars in Ukraine and Iran, the future of global power, and what these conflicts reveal about America's role in the world. Scott told us that this was the 400th edition of his podcast, which is quite a number: My friend Francesco Chiamulera runs a brilliant series of literary events, Una Colline di Libri, A Hill of Books, in the Prosecco Hills, a region of vineyards and elegant hill towns in the Veneto, north of Venice. We did an event in Vittorio Veneto and also drove and biked around the countryside. Buy Autocracy Inc Buy Iron Curtain Open Letters, from Anne Applebaum is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
Georgia: Journalist jailed and comedian attacked for political satire
Reacting to the 14-day jailing of journalist Vakho Sanaia over his satirical Facebook posts and a reported assault on comedian Onise Okriashvili following a smear campaign in pro-government media prompted by a joke he had made, Denis Krivosheev, Amnesty International’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia Deputy Regional Director, said: “Beating up and imprisoning government critics […]
Shadows Over CEE: Hybrid Sabotage and the Creeping Political Drift Away from Ukraine
Mysterious blazes at UAV production plants, improvised explosives at critical power grids, and foiled arson plots: hostile hybrid operations across Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) are no longer a theoretical threat. Yet, as defense supply chains come under literal fire, the region’s political consensus on Ukraine is quietly eroding at the polls, creating a dangerous […]
Ukrainian defence tech seeks new ways to scale up
Since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine's defence sector has expanded several-fold, becoming a significant source of military innovation, especially in unmanned systems, counter-drone technologies, electronic warfare and AI-driven combat systems. But finding the funds and personnel to scale up and to reach international markets remains a challenge.Spurred on by the demands of the front-line, Ukrainian defence companies say they can develop a minor component in a couple of weeks, or major hardware or software solutions within a year. This is several times faster than the usual development cycles in the sector. Tencore, founded in 2024, is now one of Ukraine’s largest providers of unmanned ground vehicles, well exceeding the production of NATO members in this category. Odd Systems, a Ukrainian combat cameras developer founded in 2023, launched its first thermal camera in 2024. Less than two years later, it is developing the fourth generation of the product, one that has evolved into a full vision system.According to Michael Singer, managing partner at Verne Capital, a venture capital fund supporting defence companies in Europe, this speed is down to the short feedback loop between the developer and the end user. “Ukrainian companies develop technologies in close interaction with soldiers and military units, test them under real combat conditions and rapidly incorporate feedback into the next generation of the product,” he says. “Sometimes we need to react to feedback and deploy an upgrade within hours,” says Polina Tymchenko, the spokesperson for Himera, which develops electronic warfare-resistant walkie-talkies. “It means that, as a company, you have to have a higher tolerance for risk, and also design your products in a way that fosters those quick changes.”Getting a product deployed by a combat command involves no paperwork other than a purchase order, says Perry Boyle, co-founder and chief executive of Mits Capital, a Ukrainian-US investment group focused on attracting capital for Ukraine's defence tech sector. “New weapons can be developed and deployed based largely on handshakes.”Nevertheless, the speed of development is largely subject to the level of funding, says Iryna Sukhomlyn, head of business development at RMachine, a developer of unmanned ground systems. “Financial support needs to start much earlier, particularly at technology readiness level 3-5, not only when most of the technological risk has already been removed,” she says.In 2025, Ukrainian defence tech companies attracted about $129 million in investment, with the true figure likely higher given the share of undisclosed security-sensitive deals, according to a report published by the Kyiv School of Economics. These investments were primarily concentrated in the AI and software segment, as they are considered a lower financial risk.Scaling production is a major barrierAccording to Iryna Supruniuk, business development director at Odd Systems, proving a defence product in Ukraine is not the end of the development process, but the beginning of a continuous evolution, since operational requirements change rapidly. “Continuous iteration remains our highest priority,” she says.It's also when production must scale up, which represents a major hurdle. “Scaling production requires capital, manufacturing capacity, components, certification, procurement access and reliable supply chains,” Singer says. Scale-up is also hampered by demographic pressures, especially a shortage of young specialists needed to expand engineering teams. Companies have reported struggling to replace specialists lost due to Russian attacks, mobilisation and emigration. In order to meet this scale-up challenge and finance arms production, begun allowing defence technologies to be exported, assuming it has an excess capacity. It has also announced the creation of ten defence and weapons export centres across Europe by the end of 2026.According to Singer, a technology that has demonstrated its value under real combat conditions has a fundamentally different credibility than a product that has only been tested in a laboratory or training environment. But combat validation alone doesn’t automatically create an international business. “Companies still need access to foreign defence ministries and procurement organisations, international certification, financing for production scale-up and, in many cases, local industrial partners,” he says.Already in 2026, the EU has signed several agreements with Ukraine that aim at joint defence technology development and production. These include allowing Ukraine to join the European Defence Fund, signing a financing agreement under the European Defence Industry Programme, and setting up the EU-Ukraine Drone Alliance.For Singer, it is important that European defence companies don’t just see their Ukrainian partners as technology suppliers, but rather as potential innovation partners. “Ukrainian companies bring speed, operational experience and an exceptional ability to iterate. European partners can provide industrial capacity, capital, established supply chains and access to European procurement markets.”Procurement possibilitiesWhen it comes to exports, the procurement and compliance processes involved require time, taking months or even years, and money. In other words, resources that small defence tech companies need if they are to improve and scale up their technologies. According to Sukhomlyn of RMachine, if the priority is to rapidly increase available defence capabilities, then the processes need to reflect that urgency. “If Europe wants defence innovation at wartime speed, its administrative processes also need to operate much closer to wartime speed,” she says, highlighting a need for support with certification, market access and mutual recognition of relevant testing. “Otherwise, we risk having excellent technology available but spending years making it administratively eligible to be purchased.”Related articlesRussia widens targeting of European research centresEU must support research managers in central and eastern Europe, says Visegrad fund headThis is a lesson Europe’s defence sector would do well to learn, Singer says. “Defence innovation needs to be organised around the speed and requirements of the end user, not around the speed of the bureaucracy.”Supruniuk says the European defence sector should rethink the balance between quality and quantity. “In many cases, a good-enough system available in thousands of units creates greater operational value than a perfect system available in dozens.”“For decades, everyone has been looking for that all-powerful, exquisite system that can protect everyone,” adds Tymchenko. “We see in crime that only scalable, dedicated, affordable solutions can actually defend democracies.”
Global Health & WASH
The US National Institutes of Health reopened its center and program-project machinery in force. NIGMS is funding Collaborative Program Grants for interdisciplinary teams, NIAID opened both its Immune Tolerance Network and a next-generation R&D call, the NCI runs its Carcinogen Hazard Assessment Monographs program, the National Library of Medicine is funding institutional training in biomedical AI and data science, and NIH reopened its Centers for AIDS Research. The tell: these pay for standing centers and multi-year consortia at institutions with an existing funded research base, not one-off projects, so the fit is an established US research institution, not a single investigator. Disease-specific foundations are again funding the researcher, not just the research. The Parkinson’s Foundation opened its Paul Oreffice Innovations in Care Award and the National Ataxia Foundation its Research Seed Money Grant. The tell, the same one we flagged last cycle, is a named early-career or seed award that builds a pipeline of scientists committed to one condition, so what wins is a researcher willing to specialize. The post-USAID global-health money is routing through a State Department program statement and multilateral innovation funds. The US Department of State’s Bureau of Global Health Security and Diplomacy opened its Advancing Global Health Annual Program Statement, Grand Challenges Canada opened Nexa Lighthouse for climate and health innovation in Asia and the Pacific at USD $250,000 to $2,000,000, and CEPI opened a rolling call on vaccine-manufacturing analytics. The tell: the largest health money this cycle sits in a standing program statement and in staged innovation vehicles, not in a single bilateral grant. Total Estimated Funding Pool: ~$35.4M across discrete grants. (Separately, large national-formula envelopes not counted in this total: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Global Health Security and Diplomacy (GHSD).) This post is for paid subscribers. This helps support the time and effort it takes to curate and organize these opportunities. Subscribe To keep this accessible to everyone who needs it, we’re happy to offer pay what you can rates. You can find more details here. New opportunities: Paul Oreffice Innovations in Care Award, Parkinson’s Foundation. *New!* *Closing soon!* The Parkinson’s Foundation created the Paul Oreffice Innovations in Care Award to fund clinicians rethinking how people with Parkinson’s disease receive care. The Foundation is using pilot funding to move promising ideas into testable projects, backing work across four lanes: strengthening community clinician capability, redesigning care models, building patient-centered technologies, and defining the minimum clinical datasets that make better standards possible. It wants hypothesis-driven, clinically grounded projects that can generate evidence strong enough to attract further funding. By opening the door to clinicians at every career stage and strongly preferring projects that involve people with Parkinson’s in their design, the Foundation signals that it values practical, patient-shaped innovation over prestige. The strongest fits are US-licensed clinicians with a focus on Parkinson’s and an institutional home for applied care research. Geographies: united states. Who can apply: Clinicians of all career stages, from fellows to established faculty, who are licensed to care for patients in the United States and have a significant focus on Parkinson’s disease. Physicians must have completed a neurology residency (or justify how their training pathway benefits people with PD); allied health professionals must hold an advanced degree, typically a PhD. Fellows, those in mentored positions, and those within two years of starting an independent position require a mentor and a mentor support letter. The sponsoring institution’s grants office is the authorized recipient and funds are disbursed to the institution. Funding amount: Maximum of $200,000 over two years; up to three awards. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Health; Innovation; Science & Technology. Deadline: November 1, 2026. Learn more and apply here. Design and Deliver the Next EIT Health Bootcamps, EIT Health. *New!* *Closing soon!* EIT Health is opening its call for consortia to design and deliver the next generation of its health start-up bootcamps, funding the curriculum, masterclasses, mentoring, and investor engagement that turn early health ventures into fundable companies. The organization is using these learning paths to strengthen Europe’s health innovation pipeline across digital health evidence, deep tech and AI commercialization, cross-border investment, and patient access. What EIT Health wants to back is not a single course but durable delivery capacity built by partners who span industry, education, and research. Requiring multi-country consortia and a revenue-sharing stake in the programs signals that EIT Health expects these bootcamps to outlast the grant. The strongest fits are established training providers, universities, and industry partners with proven reach into health entrepreneurs. Geographies: Europe. Who can apply: Consortia only (individuals cannot apply), comprising a minimum of two and a maximum of five independent legal entities. Partners must cover at least two sides of the Knowledge Triangle (industry, education, research), including at least one industry organisation, and at least two entities must be legally established in different Horizon Europe countries. Funding amount: Foundational Learning Path: up to EUR €112,000; Thematic Learning Paths: up to EUR €124,500 per path (up to four thematic projects); up to EUR €610,000 total EIT Health funding available under the call. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Health; Innovation; Science & Technology; Economic Development & Livelihoods. Deadline: November 2, 2026. Learn more and apply here. Technology Transfer Offices & Entrepreneurship Support Call (Beyond the Lab: From Research to Venture), EIT Health. *New!* *Closing soon!* EIT Health is opening its Technology Transfer Offices and Entrepreneurship Support Call to fund consortia that will deliver the Beyond the Lab: From Research to Venture program for healthcare researchers. EIT Health is using the grant to build local capacity for turning laboratory science into incorporated start-ups, paying experienced technology transfer offices and entrepreneurship support providers to run masterclasses, structured mentoring, and a closing Pitch Day across two cohorts. It wants to back organizations that can walk researchers from discovery to company formation, not just teach theory. Requiring two transfer offices plus one venture-building provider signals that EIT Health values proven commercialization experience alongside academic reach. The strongest fits are European research-commercialization teams with a track record of moving health innovations toward investable ventures. Geographies: Europe. Who can apply: A consortium of two Technology Transfer Offices (representing higher education institutions or research organisations) and one Entrepreneurship Support Provider with demonstrated experience in venture building and start-up support. Applicants may apply for more than one learning path where they can demonstrate the required expertise and capacity for each. Funding amount: Up to EUR €77,000 in 2027 and up to EUR €77,000 in 2028 (up to EUR €154,000 total per consortium over two years). Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Health; Innovation; Science & Technology; Economic Development & Livelihoods. Deadline: November 2, 2026. Learn more and apply here. EIT Health RIS Country Representatives Call (2027-2028), EIT Health. *New!* *Closing soon!* EIT Health is seeking organizations to serve as Country Representatives across eleven Regional Innovation Scheme countries in central and eastern Europe for the 2027 to 2028 period. The money funds a national anchor in each country, an organization that maps the local health innovation ecosystem, connects startups and researchers to EIT Health programs, and builds the stakeholder relationships that let health ventures grow. EIT Health is backing local capacity rather than individual projects, which is why it accepts both single organizations and national consortia that span education, research, and industry. The requirement for co-financing signals that it wants representatives already embedded in their national systems. The strongest fits are established ecosystem builders with deep ties to health innovation stakeholders in one eligible country. Geographies: Croatia; Czech Republic; Estonia; Greece; Hungary; Latvia; Malta; Romania; Serbia; Slovenia; Turkey. Who can apply: Registered legal entities established in one of the eligible EIT RIS countries. Single organisations or national consortia may apply. Consortia must include at least two sides of the Knowledge Triangle (education, research and industry), and all consortium partners must be established in the same eligible country. Suitable applicants have demonstrated experience in healthcare innovation ecosystem development, innovation support and entrepreneurship, start-up acceleration, technology transfer, research and higher education, business support, and stakeholder engagement, with strong links to national innovation stakeholders. Funding amount: Up to EUR €182,000 per Country Representative (maximum funding per project); total call budget up to EUR €1,274,500; EIT Health funds up to 60% of total eligible project costs. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Health; Innovation; Science & Technology; Economic Development & Livelihoods. Deadline: November 2, 2026. Learn more and apply here. Architects of Trust: Community-Driven Demand Creation for New TB Vaccines, Treatment Action Group (TAG). *New!* *Closing soon!* Treatment Action Group, with funding from Wellcome, is opening its Architects of Trust call to help communities prepare for the new tuberculosis vaccines now moving through late-stage trials. The money backs civil society and community-based organizations to raise awareness, surface local questions and concerns, and press policymakers toward equitable national rollout. By pairing each grantee with an advocacy mentor and running a strategy workshop alongside the Global TB Vaccine Forum, Treatment Action Group is building a durable advocacy bench rather than funding one-off outreach. The two-stage design, starting with a short expression of interest, signals that fit and community rootedness matter more than polished proposals. The strongest fits are locally trusted groups with real TB, immunization, or health advocacy experience and a committed project lead. Geographies: Brazil; Ethiopia; India; Indonesia; Kenya; Malawi; Mozambique; Nigeria; Peru; Philippines; South Africa; Tanzania; Vietnam; Zambia. Who can apply: National, subnational, or regional civil society organizations (CSOs) or community-based organizations based in one of the 14 eligible countries or in Eastern Europe/Central Asia regional networks, with experience in TB, immunization, or other health advocacy and in community engagement or policy advocacy; well integrated into stakeholder networks with membership or affiliation to other CSO or community networks; naming a dedicated project lead (’architect of trust’) who can attend the April 2027 Zaragoza forum in person; and holding (or committing to adopt) organizational policies on safeguarding (bullying, harassment, abuse, and harm), equity, diversity and inclusion, and legal compliance, research practice and governance. Funding amount: Grants of up to US$45,000 will be awarded to 8 CSO partners across 14 high-TB-burden countries plus regional networks in Eastern Europe and Central Asia; each grant funds 12 months of work. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Health; Governance; Policy & Advocacy. Deadline: November 4, 2026. Learn more and apply here.
UFC set for debut show in Serbia on Aug. 1
The UFC will break new ground in Southeastern Europe this summer.
From Detroit to Warsaw: Was NATO enlargement driven by US electoral politics?
In October 1996, Bill Clinton announced in Detroit his commitment to expanding NATO into Central and Eastern Europe. With its large Polish-American community, the city was no accidental choice. In this conversation with Marc López Plana, Yale political scientist Ian Shapiro explains to the editor and director of 'Agenda Pública' how US electoral calculations helped shape a decision that would transform European security.
Bausch Health (BHC) Expands Probiotic Skincare Bet To Six New Markets
On September 8, Bausch Health Companies Inc. (NYSE:BHC) and Belgian skincare innovator YUN announced they are extending their microbiome-focused dermatology partnership into Mexico and five additional markets spanning Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The move builds on a 2025 launch in Poland and lands just weeks after the company raised its full-year guidance […]
WSU wine science students experience Moldovan winemaking traditions, culture
During a recent trip to Moldova, WSU students toured medieval ruins, a monastery, and subterranean caves where monks hid from enemies while protecting wine, a historically symbolic and religious product in the eastern European country.
Ukraine’s prime minister steps down as country ‘is changing its political strategy’
Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko stepped down on Sunday, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reshapes his cabinet amid Russia’s ongoing invasion of the eastern European country. In a…
DeAPlaneta to Represent Iron Maiden, Backstreet Boys in Europe
The company will serve as licensing agent for Global Merchandising Services' roster in Iberia, France and Central and Eastern Europe.
APT28 Uses Microsoft Office CVE-2026-21509 in Espionage-Focused Malware Attacks
APT28 exploited a Microsoft Office flaw to deliver MiniDoor and Covenant Grunt malware in targeted attacks across Ukraine and Eastern Europe.
Is the EU research budget actually increasing?
Is a Horizon Europe budget of €158 billion a 10% cut or a significant increase to the EU’s support for research and innovation? What would seem like a question of fact has divided opinion in Brussels since the Irish presidency of the EU Council presented its negotiation box on October 10. The answer depends on factors such as how you adjust for inflation, whether you account for increases in overall EU wealth and if you care about absolute or proportional figures. The €158 billion budget in current prices, proposed by the Irish presidency of the EU Council, was quickly criticised by university lobbies and rejected by the high-level expert group led by former Portuguese science minister Manuel Heitor. It was also decried by the four pro-European political groups in the European Parliament. “How can Europe close its competitiveness gap while cutting the European Competitiveness Fund by 13% and Horizon Europe by nearly 10%?” asked a joint statement by the European People’s Party (EPP), Renew Europe, the Socialists and Democrats and the Greens/European Free Alliance. Together, these parties hold 63% of seats in the Parliament.In stark contrast, Irish foreign affairs minister Helen McEntee said that the proposal “significantly increases investment in competitiveness, research and innovation,” Meanwhile, a presidency press release said that, compared to the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the proposal would “double the volume of competitiveness related programmes.” So, who is right? That depends on how you make the calculation.Compared to the Commission figure or the previous budget?The first thing to notice is the difference in baselines. When the MEPs say the Irish presidency will cut Horizon Europe by “nearly 10%” they are using the European Commission proposal for the MFF from July 2025, which allocated €175 billion in current prices to Horizon Europe. However, when the Irish foreign affairs minister said the research and competitiveness budget is increasing significantly, she is comparing it to the 2021-27 MFF, which had a Horizon Europe budget of €84.9 billion in 2018 prices.Her point holds when accounting for inflation. Applying a 2% annual inflation rate, the calculation method used by the Commission, the 2021-27 Horizon Europe would have a budget of €97.5 billion in 2025 prices. In comparison, the Irish presidency’s €158 billion figure in current prices translates to €140 billion in 2025 prices. Does the ECF count?But there is more to the dispute. In its statements, the Irish presidency lumped the research budget in with the overall budget for competitiveness. The Parliament statement, however, kept the two separate. This matters because the next MFF includes plans to add a new European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) to fund programmes meant to boost the continent's competitiveness. The Irish negotiating box allocated €245 billion in current prices to this programme.When this is added to the €158 billion for Horizon Europe, as well as programmes such as the EU education programme Erasmus+, the total for “competitiveness, prosperity and security” in the Irish proposal becomes €514 billion in current prices. But it is still uncertain how big a share of this competitiveness budget would go to research. The Commission proposal of July 2025 for the MFF included clear links between the ECF and Horizon Europe, indicating some ECF money will go to research. At the same time, the structure of the ECF is still being negotiated, and a substantial part of its budget is expected to support non-research activities such as defence manufacturing, decarbonisation and digital infrastructure. Related articlesCouncil floats 9.6% budget cut to next Horizon EuropeResearch community to appeal to national governments over planned EU budget cutEU own resources ‘essential’ for future research budget, says leading MEPSo, it is by looking at competitiveness rather than research, or combining the two, that the Irish presidency can claim that its proposed budget will significantly increase investment in competitiveness, research and innovation.According to the Irish presidency proposal, Horizon Europe and other competitiveness-related programmes in the current multiannual budget received €221 billion in current prices. However, since this money is being distributed from 2021 to 2027, it is not directly comparable to the €514 billion in current prices which will be distributed from 2028 to 2034.Research as a proportion of the MFFBut the relative rise in competitiveness-related programmes points to another important distinction: whether you look at the research budget in absolute terms or as a share of the overall MFF. Here, too, the size of the research budget has risen, although only slightly. In the 2021-27 MFF, Horizon Europe accounted for 7% of the total budget. In the Irish presidency’s proposal, it amounts to 8.7%. The share for the total competitiveness envelope went from 17.7% in the current MFF to 28.1% in the Irish presidency proposal.This proportional share may seem irrelevant to universities looking for research funding, but it is becoming significant as budget negotiations between the Parliament, the Commission and the Council begin. On October 2, a group of 17 southern and eastern European countries sent out a statement calling for the EU agriculture and cohesion budgets to be protected. The Parliament’s co-rapporteur on the budget, Siegfried Mureșan of the EPP, has also said that the research envelope is likely to be cut disproportionately as the budget is slimmed down during negotiations.
Resurgent Political Risk Derails Rallies Across Emerging Markets
Investors in emerging markets are getting slammed by a fresh wave of political turmoil that is derailing bets from Latin America to Eastern Europe.
Polish scientists and students rally in campaign for 3% funding target
Polish scientists and students have been flooding social media with calls on the government to raise research and development spending as part of 3% for Science, 100% for Poland, a campaign born earlier this month out of frustration with chronic underfunding in the academic sector. On May 27, thousands took the slogan on to the streets.The EU has been trying to convince member states to raise their R&D expenditures to 3% of GDP for more than two decades, but the idea has never gained traction in capitals. Finance ministers were too busy plugging budget holes created in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, then the Covid pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and now the war in Iran.Critics say that countries missed or ignored the target because it is voluntary, but also because research communities have rarely raised their voice to put pressure on national governments. The European Commission hopes to make the target legally binding in the upcoming European Research Area Act, an EU-wide regulation that should be announced by the end of the year. Academia in Poland has been faced with a funding crisis for years, often leaving its members with no other choice but to work abroad in order to access better resources, or leave the sector altogether in the hope of earning a decent living. The risk, in the long-term, is that brain drain stifles local innovation capacity and technological competitiveness.In just a few weeks, the movement rallied nationwide support, including from major academic bodies and trade unions such as the Conference of Rectors of Academic Schools in Poland and the Presidium of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Its public petition collected more than 23,000 signatures. On May 27, it formed the first large protest for science in Poland, gathering thousands of people in front of the parliament building in Warsaw.Ilona Uryga-Bugajska, representative of the Marie Curie Alumni Association Poland Chapter, was there. “The protest was peaceful, with no incidents reported, and the entire event took place in a respectful and calm atmosphere,” she said. Banners she saw in the crowd carried slogans such as “A little longer and I’ll be teaching in a supermarket,” “National culture, starvation salary,” “Stop the destruction of science,” “Passion will not pay the rent,” “Without action, don’t expect a better future,” and “Pull science out of the hole.” She also observed a strong presence of young researchers, who are on the frontline of Poland’s academic crisis.“Academics are usually people who prefer discussion, analysis, dialogue and compromise. We are not a group that protests easily,” said Katarzyna Marzec, professor at the Faculty of Pharmacy of the Jagiellonian University Medical College and AGH University of Krakow, who also took part. “But many of us feel that we have been pushed against the wall.”Aleksandra Rutkowska, translational neuroscientist and research group leader at the Medical University of Gdańsk, agreed. “Frustration in the scientific community is very high,” she said. “Science is often used politically as a symbol of innovation and modernity, but the everyday reality inside many institutions is much more difficult. There is a large gap between the public narrative and the actual condition of the sector.”Maria Wiktoria Górna, head of the structural biology group at the University of Warsaw and one of the organisers of the movement, told Science|Business that the campaign would continue without proven results. This might involve another strike in the autumn, she said. “Empty promises are not enough by now.”Campaign demandsAccording to Uryga-Bugajska, the organisers officially presented their demands and concerns to representatives of the government present at the event. These included Marek Gzik, deputy minister of science and higher education, and Karolina Zioło-Pużuk, secretary of state of that same ministry.The headline demand, for the government to increase national spending on R&D to 3% of GDP by 2030, should be within Poland’s economic capacity, Rutkowska said. “The real question is whether there is genuine long-term political commitment to treating science as a strategic priority rather than a slogan.”In 2024, R&D expenditure in Poland stood at 1.41% of GDP, which is slightly above the average for central and eastern Europe, with countries such as Czechia recording 1.82%, Hungary 1.31% and Romania 0.46%. However, it falls noticeably short of the EU average of 2.24%, which just a handful of countries exceed, including Germany, Belgium and Sweden.Campaigners are also asking for fair wages for scientific staff, including PhD stipends and junior academic salaries, which are widely considered uncompetitive. Starting doctoral scholarships amount to some €843 gross per month, when the statutory minimum wage stands at €1,135. By pushing early-career researchers out of Poland, growing precarity has caused a generational gap in the academic workforce, with just 25% of lecturers aged under 40. In this context, the movement fears that scientific careers could soon be accessible to a privileged minority only.Grzegorz Spólnik is a case in point. After 15 years working in mass spectrometry at the Polish Academy of Sciences, he decided to leave partly “to earn enough money to live a normal life,” he said. “At that time, my earnings were similar to those of people working in grocery shops, and the work-life balance is something that does not exist in science, or is very hard to achieve.”Now a senior field service engineer for Polish laboratory equipment supplier Bioanalytic, he would consider going back to research, “but never in the public sector, maybe some start-up or a big private company with ambitious R&D.”The campaigners want to see more support for basic research and have called for €236 million to be added to the budget of the National Science Centre (NCN) in 2027 so that the average grant application success rate does not fall below 25%.“At the protest, there was a banner I particularly liked: ‘NCN is not a lottery.’ Unfortunately, for many researchers, it increasingly feels exactly like one,” Marzec said. “Personally, I am one of the lucky ones. I work at two of the strongest institutions in the country, where the research standards are very high. I know that in many other institutions, the situation is much worse and obtaining funding for research at an early-career stage is becoming nearly impossible.”Rutkowska also considers herself fortunate. After studying abroad and holding a postdoctoral position, she returned to Poland, where her pay was supported through an NCN-funded project linked to the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions. “This also made me very aware that good research conditions in Poland often depend on external competitive funding rather than on stable support from the system itself,” she said.Long-term strategyBeyond the lack of funds for both salaries and grants, scientists believe that the issue is structural. “The biggest problem at the moment is the complete lack of a clear long-term strategy for the development of science and research from the current government,” Marzec said. “Everything ends with declarations and promises that are never truly followed by concrete actions or structural reforms.”Rutkowska agreed, citing a lack of infrastructure, continuity and long-term institutional support.“Running a research group in Poland often means functioning as an entire institution at once,” she said. “I am a principal investigator, a mentor, a recruiter, a project administrator and, when needed, still someone who returns to the lab bench to help with experiments,” she went on. “This creates a large hidden workload that takes time and energy away from actual science. At times, it feels as though scientists are no longer expecting extra help; we simply hope the system will stop creating additional obstacles that make research unnecessarily difficult.”Related articlesStrategic thinking: Germany funds joint research with Poland and FrancePoland to transfer €30M of regional funds to boost Horizon Europe participationPoland is funding fewer basic research grants as high inflation hitsIn short, “academics are expected to teach, publish papers, apply for grants and conduct high-quality research, while funding and salaries remain very limited,” said Uryga-Bugajska, who returned to her home country after 13 years in the UK.According to Marzec, another issue is the way that research institutions are evaluated. Previously, this took place every four years, with a clear differentiation between stronger and weaker institutions. “The current government, perhaps to avoid political backlash, effectively concluded that everyone is doing well, so in practice no meaningful evaluation took place,” she said.But in her view, “some form of serious assessment is necessary” to ensure the excellence and international competitiveness of Polish institutions, and to determine how to best use public resources and where institutional structures need reform. “Some institutions may need to rethink hiring practices in order to attract ambitious young researchers who are capable of obtaining competitive grants and building internationally visible research groups.” Rutkowska has already had to adapt. “When hiring PhD students, I often have to combine different funding sources creatively to make positions attractive enough for talented people to stay in science,” she said. “Many young researchers do not see a stable future in academia in Poland, and that is deeply worrying.”
Ballard Partners taps Gladden Pappin to lead Central and Eastern Europe practice
'Gladden’s agenda-setting work has made him a key interlocutor at the highest levels of Washington as well as in European policymaking.'