The EU's R&D Dilemma: Global Health and Agriculture Investment Faces a Values Test

When Brussels Talks About Strategic Autonomy, Does That Include Feeding the World and Fighting Pandemics? The Answer Reveals a Deeper Tension in European Policy

The EU is positioning itself as a leader in global health and agriculture R&D, but faces a fundamental tension between inward-looking industrial competitiveness and outward-facing development commitments. CEPS research projects are examining how the post-2028 EU budget can reconcile these goals, while evidence from agricultural economics suggests public R&D investment generates returns of 8:1 to 28:1. The question is not whether to invest, but whether Europe can hold both priorities simultaneously.

This tension between European strategic interests and global development commitments is exactly the kind of policy puzzle worth examining in person. Human x AI Europe in Vienna on May 19 brings together the policymakers and researchers grappling with these questions.

The Disagreement Worth Naming

European policymakers are currently engaged in what appears to be a straightforward debate about R&D funding levels. Dig beneath the surface, and something more interesting emerges: a values disagreement masquerading as a budget dispute.

On one side sits the argument for strategic autonomy in health and agriculture. Europe needs domestic capacity, the reasoning goes, to avoid dependency on foreign suppliers during crises. The pandemic taught this lesson painfully. On the other side sits the argument for global partnership, particularly with low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Climate change, antimicrobial resistance, and food insecurity do not respect borders. Neither should research investment.

CEPS's Global Health and Agriculture R&D Perspectives project is attempting to hold both positions in productive tension. The project aims to make the case for increased and improved EU investment, both as a stand-alone effort and even more in collaboration with Member States, associated countries, low- and middle-income countries, international governmental organisations, private businesses, local actors and international philanthropies.

That sentence contains a lot of commas. Each comma represents a stakeholder with different interests. The question is whether the EU budget post-2028 can accommodate all of them.

What the Numbers Actually Show

Before arguing about priorities, the factual landscape deserves examination. Research presented at a C-FARE webinar by Julian M. Alston of UC Davis describes agricultural innovation as slow magic. Research investments typically require 10 to 15 years to generate new technologies, followed by another decade before widespread adoption produces measurable benefits.

Despite these long lags, the returns are substantial. Across hundreds of studies and thousands of estimates, the average benefit-cost ratio is 27.9 to one, with a median of roughly eight to one. These gains reflect higher yields, cost savings for farmers, lower prices for consumers, and reduced pressure on natural resources.

The problem: public agricultural R&D funding in the United States has fallen by roughly one-third in real terms since the early 2000s. Productivity growth has slowed since its mid-20th-century peak. Because research impacts unfold over decades, the consequences of recent funding reductions have yet to be fully realized.

Policy Cures Research's impact analysis offers an even more striking figure for global health R&D: for every dollar spent, there is a societal return of $405. This includes both health outcomes and economic benefits.

These numbers are not contested. What is contested is who should pay, who should benefit, and how to balance immediate industrial interests against long-term global goods.

The HERA Question

The Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA) sits at the center of this tension. A February 2026 CEPS paper argues that HERA is well placed to lead the EU's efforts to strengthen international R&D collaboration but warns that its external mandate remains underfunded and its engagement with low- and middle-income countries is largely project-based rather than capacity-building oriented.

The paper identifies a specific risk: The EU's sharpening focus on industrial competitiveness threatens to redirect priorities inward, crowding out global health when it demands greater investment.

This is a values disagreement, not a facts disagreement. Both sides agree that HERA has limited resources. Both sides agree that global health threats require international cooperation. The disagreement is about whether European taxpayers should prioritize building domestic capacity or building global capacity, and whether these goals are genuinely in tension or can be pursued simultaneously.

The strongest version of the inward-looking argument: Europe cannot help others if it cannot help itself. Domestic manufacturing capacity for vaccines and therapeutics is a prerequisite for being a reliable global partner. The strongest version of the outward-looking argument: diseases do not wait for Europe to achieve self-sufficiency. Capacity-building in LMICs is not charity; it is epidemiological self-defense.

The FP10 Horizon

CEPS's three-year project on EU R&I and Health Policy is explicitly designed to influence the EU's tenth R&I Framework Programme (FP10), set to start in 2028. The project includes foresight workshops, a data-driven mapping of women's health innovation, and initiatives to crowdsource ideas for removing barriers to health innovation in developing countries.

The framing matters. Removing barriers to health innovation in developing countries positions LMICs as recipients of European expertise. Capacity-building partnerships positions them as collaborators. Challenge-driven initiatives blending various funding schemes positions them as co-investors in shared problems.

WHO data reveals the current imbalance: only 0.2% of research grants from major international funders go to low-income countries. There are 59 times more health researchers in high-income countries than in low-income countries. Less than 0.5% of health products address WHO neglected tropical diseases.

These disparities are not accidental. They reflect decades of funding decisions that prioritized diseases affecting wealthy populations. The question for FP10 is whether Europe will continue this pattern or attempt to correct it.

Where the Debate Breaks Down

The sovereignty-versus-partnership framing obscures a more fundamental question: what kind of actor does Europe want to be?

If the answer is a competitive industrial power that happens to do some development work, then HERA's external mandate will remain underfunded and project-based. If the answer is a global health leader that builds domestic capacity as part of a larger strategy, then the budget architecture needs to change.

The CEPS projects are attempting to build consensus among high-level influencers and institutions before the post-2028 budget negotiations. This is sensible politics. It is also a recognition that the current debate is stuck on the wrong question.

The right question is not how much should Europe spend on global health and agriculture R&D? The right question is what theory of change connects European investment to global outcomes? Without answering that question, more money simply means more of the same.

Agricultural R&D offers a useful comparison. The 8:1 to 28:1 returns documented by Alston and colleagues did not happen automatically. They required sustained public investment over decades, institutional infrastructure for technology transfer, and extension services that connected research to farmers. The slow magic worked because someone built the plumbing.

Global health R&D faces the same challenge. The $405 return per dollar invested is impressive, but it depends on health systems capable of delivering new products to patients. Building those systems is not a separate activity from R&D it is part of the same value chain.

The Question That Remains

Europe's R&D debate will likely be resolved through budget negotiations that balance competing interests. The Global Health Resilience Initiative (GHRI) announced by the Commission signals renewed commitment to global health leadership. Whether that commitment survives contact with industrial policy priorities remains to be seen.

The evidence base is clear: public R&D investment in health and agriculture generates exceptional returns. The institutional architecture is evolving: HERA, FP10, and the GHRI represent genuine attempts to coordinate European action. The values question is unresolved: does Europe see itself as a fortress or a partner?

That question cannot be answered by researchers or think tanks. It will be answered by the choices European policymakers make when resources are scarce and priorities compete.