Europe is approaching a decisive juncture in its strategy for investing in brain health, as policymakers confront the widening gap between the region’s research ambitions and the escalating societal burden of neurological and mental disorders.
With these conditions now among the most complex and costly challenges facing health systems, pressure is mounting on Brussels and national governments to demonstrate whether current funding structures are equipped for the scale, coordination and long-term planning the field demands.
At the centre of the debate lies a pointed question: is Europe investing enough – and can it even quantify who is spending what?
Neurological and mental disorders have emerged as the leading cause of death and disability globally, yet Europe’s investment trajectory remains uneven. Since 2014, EU-level funding for brain health research and innovation has totalled €7.4bn, narrowly trailing oncology at €8.1bn, despite the lack of strategic instruments – such as dedicated missions – that have helped accelerate cancer research. Including overlapping programmes raises total EU investment to €9.2bn, but these figures capture only spending from Brussels, not national budgets.
Across Member States, national research investment remains fragmented and difficult to track. No consolidated estimate exists for overall European spending on brain health, though EU framework programmes represent roughly 6 per cent of the continent’s total research and innovation outlay – underscoring both the scale of national effort and the opacity that continues to cloud it.
Is comparison possible?
This tension becomes sharper when viewed in comparison to the United States, where brain health research benefits from higher and more stable investment.
According to analysis by The Transmitter, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for neuroscience more than doubled between 2008 and 2024, rising from $4.2 billion to $10.5 billion, meaning that in 2024 alone, the U.S. spent $10.5 billion on neuroscience-related research.
Yet direct comparison is limited by Europe’s fragmented landscape and differing classification systems, which assign overlapping projects (e.g., brain–cardiovascular research) to only one category.
Still, the structural contrast is clear: the U.S. operates a centralised, long-term investment model, while Europe’s effort is broader but far more distributed.
The EU Life Sciences Strategy, shaped by the Heitor, Letta and Draghi reports, warns that fragmentation, investment gaps and insufficient follow-on funding continue to hinder Europe’s ability to scale research, translate innovation and attract global clinical trials.
Europe must step up now
Europe must now decide whether brain health remains a secondary research domain or becomes a clearly defined pillar of its life sciences and competitiveness strategy.
The U.S. Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative is set to lose $81 million in 2025 due to the phase-down of the 21st Century Cures Act financing.
Despite adjustment, neuroscience still represents nearly one-third of NIH research funding, underscoring the depth of U.S. commitment.
For Europe, the moment should serve as a catalyst rather than a comparison. Investing in brain health is not only a scientific priority but essential for Europe’s competitiveness, resilience and long-term security. If Europe aims to become “the world’s most attractive destination for life sciences by 2030,” failing to scale and anchor brain-health investment would undermine that ambition.
The Canada Brain Economy Declaration reframes brain health as an economic asset, arguing that societies have long undervalued brain capital. Similarly, the World Economic Forum’s Brain Economy Action Forum, set to release recommendations in January at Davos, signals global momentum behind treating brain health as economic infrastructure.
Structurally disadvantaged
Unlike oncology, brain research remains inherently high-risk. Many neurological and psychiatric disorders lack validated biomarkers, clear therapeutic targets and robust endpoints.
As the Innovative Health Initiative (IHI) explains, biological complexity, translation challenges and inadequate diagnostic tools continue to slow development, and “a new approach to clinical trials for treatments for brain disorders” is urgently needed.
These challenges exceed the capacity of any single actor, reinforcing the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration.
Towards coordinated investment
To break this cycle, the EU is advancing the European Partnership for Brain Health (EP Brain Health), a 10-year initiative aligning EU framework funding with Member State investment to counter fragmentation and provide continuity beyond normal programme cycles.
The partnership brings together funders from 33 countries across fundamental, translational and clinical research. Dr Ulrike Bußhoff notes an “overall planned budget of ~€500m,” combining national contributions with €150m from the EU.
Its core purpose is to strengthen coordination and long-term planning rather than introduce a major increase in funding volume.
“It is a step in the right direction,” says European Brain Council executive director Frédéric Destrebecq, adding that its impact would benefit from further support via other sources of funding, such as from the European Investment Bank and European Investment Fund, alongside stronger mobilisation of private capital through public–private partnerships.
PPP investment risk equation
Public funding alone will not close the brain-health investment gap. A core pillar of Europe’s approach is the use of public–private partnerships (PPPs) to de-risk innovation and accelerate translation into clinical practice.
As IHI notes, PPPs bring together universities, industry, SMEs, patient groups and regulators around shared objectives, enabling large-scale collaboration and faster movement from research to real-world application. They also provide a neutral space for engagement with regulators and the responsible use of health data, helping align innovation with ethical, legal and regulatory requirements.
IHI is further strengthening this role through the development of regulatory sandboxes, positioning PPPs as key enablers for piloting and scaling emerging health innovations.
Brain health funding architecture
Negotiations on the next Multiannual Financial Framework (2028–2034) remain ongoing, but the European Commission signals continuity for brain health within future EU research policy.
A Commission spokesperson stated to Euractiv: “The research on brain health has been a long-standing EU priority. Negotiations on the next Multiannual Financial Framework, including the future EU framework programme for research and innovation, are ongoing (Horizon Europe 2028-2034). The structure and priorities of the next programme are still under discussion.”
In the Commission’s proposal, Pillar II (Competitiveness and Society) would support collaborative research and innovation through policy windows, including ‘Health, Biotech, Agriculture and Bioeconomy’, potentially relevant for brain health research.
In parallel, other funding streams such as the European Research Council (ERC) and the European Innovation Council (EIC) are expected to offer additional pathways for both academic and translational investment.
In addition, the EP Brain Health is expected to provide a dedicated channel for joint transnational calls during its first seven years, subject to final adoption of its work programme. At the beginning of 2026, it will launch two Calls for Proposals for Multinational Translational Research Projects.
The coming years, from the 2026 launch of the EP Brain Health to negotiations over the 2028–2034 MFF, will determine whether Europe embeds brain research as a permanent strategic priority or continues to trail global funding leaders. The direction is now clear. Whether the scale will follow remains the defining question.
(BM)
link
+ There are no comments
Add yours