Due to the war, Ukrainian science has found itself in conditions threatening its very survival: thousands of researchers have left the country, a third of the research infrastructure has been destroyed, and funding has shrunk to a critical minimum. All this has happened against the backdrop of an almost total lack of continuous support from the state.
However, this year’s Ukraine Recovery Conference (URC), held in Rome, became the first to clearly underscore the key role of science in Ukraine’s recovery. The conference has been dubbed the “Scientific Ramstein”—a reference to the Ukraine Defense Contact Group held at the Ramstein Air Base—and has become an annual platform that brings together governments, donors, international organizations, business and civil society to coordinate efforts for Ukraine’s recovery and transformation. This year’s program included, for the first time, a separate panel dedicated to science—a clear signal that without a strong scientific foundation, there will be neither an innovative economy nor high-quality reconstruction.
What kind of support does Ukrainian science need from international partners and the state in order to become a real driver of social progress, rather than a decorative element?
Political recognition of science
The fact that Ukrainian science was given a separate panel at this year’s URC is a major signal. Previously, the topic of science was barely mentioned in the context of education, and last year it was only the final point of a joint panel with education. Now, however, the issue of supporting science has gained political weight.
Moreover, the initiative to create a separate panel came from the Ukrainian side. The goal was not merely to voice needs but to propose effective mechanisms of support. The demand for scientific expertise is clearly growing, even among technology developers. But at the governmental level, there is still a lack of targeted focus on supporting both science itself and tools for enabling cooperation between science and business. At present, there isn’t even a clear understanding of what these tools should look like.
The problem with the evacuation aid model
The assistance offered by international partners also requires coordination. Often, especially in the early stages of the war, international support for scientists was viewed primarily as facilitating their evacuation abroad. However, certain prerequisites played a role. For instance, nearly every European country lacked legal mechanisms to transfer funds directly to Ukraine. Most countries’ budget tools are structured in such a way that they can only finance researchers staying on their own territory. In the short term, this kind of support is valuable. But for Ukrainian science as a whole, it poses a serious threat—even before the war, there was already a significant brain drain. The full-scale invasion only exacerbated it.
Losses: infrastructure and personnel
According to the Ministry of Education and Science (MES), as of February 2023, more than 6,000 scientists had left Ukraine. It is easy to imagine how much this number has grown over two years. At the same time, research infrastructure has also suffered: the MES’s March 2023 report recorded damage or destruction to about 35 percent of facilities. Additional data from the Resilient Minds report shows that 29.4 percent of scientific institutions sustained physical damage, more than 40 universities and institutes were forced to relocate, 10–20 percent of scientists left their jobs, and 54.3 percent of researchers reported they could no longer work at pre-war levels.
These figures are quite emblematic—they reflect the reality that scientists left without support are losing access to essential equipment, institutional backing and funding. At the same time, they are still working within research infrastructures that were outdated even before the full-scale war and are now damaged as well.
Coalition model: the “Scientific Ramstein”
In this context, it is critically important that any external assistance be targeted and aligned with real needs. For many Ukrainian laboratories, even used foreign equipment—which in some cases surpasses what’s currently available in Ukraine—would be welcome. European colleagues regularly upgrade their equipment and could transfer earlier models, provided they remain functional. Of course, the ideal solution would be a systematic upgrade of laboratories via the procurement of new and advanced equipment.
Therefore, it’s essential that such equipment transfers be tied to specific scientific work. Without regard to the field’s specifics, the equipment may simply be ineffective. That’s why bilateral partnerships—where equipment is transferred for a particular task and supported by scientific cooperation—are the best approach.
European countries have often independently offered similar support solutions, particularly remote access to their own scientific infrastructure. This is a genuinely important and valuable form of aid, granting Ukrainian researchers access to modern equipment. But for these initiatives to be as effective as possible, coordination is essential. Hence the idea emerged to create a donor coalition—a kind of “scientific Ramstein”—where each country takes on clearly defined areas of responsibility, based on the real needs of Ukrainian scientists.
At the conference, a Declaration of Intent on the International Coalition for Science, Research and Innovation in Ukraine was signed. It sets out to coordinate and align efforts to support Ukraine’s scientific and innovation sectors, taking into account the actual needs of Ukrainian researchers and the capacities of international partners. This was a landmark event, demonstrating readiness for long-term collaboration.
The memorandum envisions a conscious division of efforts: some partners focus on providing equipment, others on institutional support, mentoring or assistance with joint research and innovation projects. This approach helps avoid duplication of initiatives, improves the efficiency of international aid and ensures a focus on priorities that reflect the real conditions and needs of Ukrainian science.
Credit is due to the Ministry of Education and Science, in particular Deputy Minister Denys Kurbatov and his team, the Italian side and EU representatives, as well as civic enthusiasts for making the signing of this memorandum possible. Work on it began almost immediately after last year’s Berlin conference, where—thanks to the efforts and initiative of our German partners—the issue of science was elevated to this high level.
Examples and partnerships
At present, most European scientists prefer to support Ukrainian researchers through their own national instruments. But new models of cooperation are beginning to emerge. For example, even before the full-scale war, Germany organized a competition to establish 12 laboratories in Ukraine. Despite the war-related risks, this initiative has not been suspended: the projects are ongoing and expanding, and Ukrainian scientists are receiving foreign aid while continuing to work in Ukraine. These kinds of examples can serve as the foundation for new partnership models.
Domestic transformations and the funding problem
At the same time, it is equally important that internal changes are also taking place, showing Ukraine’s own readiness for transformation.
Over the past year, a number of new initiatives have emerged in the scientific sphere, though some have sparked lively and difficult debates within the professional community. For instance, a new methodology for the certification of universities (in terms of their research activities) and scientific institutions was introduced, applying criteria that allow for objective evaluation. While this is only the first iteration and has its flaws, it is an important step forward: as a result, the best-performing institutions received additional funding from the Ministry of Finance—not as a redistribution of existing funds but as separate financing aligned with European standards. Although the amounts were modest, the fact itself is a strong signal. A new draft law on scientific priorities has been developed, and the deregulation of the National Research Fund has begun.
A similar logic can be seen in the funding of shared-use equipment centers—still modest, but capable of shifting mindsets. Scientists are beginning to believe in the possibility of change and to compete for resources. This is the classic multiplier effect: small steps can trigger larger processes and inspire public hope for genuine transformation.
At the same time, continuity and consistency in the reforms launched is absolutely critical. This is when the multiplier effect truly takes hold—when even small investments drive broader systemic change.
However, no reform will be effective without adequate funding. Currently, Ukraine invests only 0.33 percent of its GDP in science. To speak of a real breakthrough, at least 0.8 percent is needed. Without funding, no reform will work. There is a false belief that passing a new law is enough to make the system function. But real change requires investment. Otherwise, it’s just an imitation of reform.
Science and the economy—integration into global chains
Many engineering companies in Ukraine have been founded by people with scientific backgrounds, who, driven by the needs of the army or the state, began developing their own technology businesses. This is a point of growth—high-tech production, not, for example, a coffee shop. But it is crucial to understand that requiring scientists to be entrepreneurs is ineffective. It scatters focus, demotivates them and often results in losses on both ends. It is far better to form teams where everyone performs their own role: the scientist generates ideas; the entrepreneur implements them.
One avenue of development is integrating Ukrainian scientists into international value chains—that is, into global processes of developing, producing and commercializing high-tech products. This includes quantum technologies, semiconductors and defense innovations. Ukraine has highly qualified professionals who can be valuable partners. But this requires cooperation platforms, support mechanisms, stable links—and the understanding that science does not exist in a vacuum.
Culture of cooperation and entrepreneurial education
The future ecosystem must be cooperation between science and business must be the key element—but not by forcing entrepreneurial functions on scientists. The task is to create an environment where entrepreneurs and researchers work together. This requires a culture of cooperation, trust and mutual understanding that each is doing their own job. Business develops products and brings them to market. Science generates ideas and finds new solutions.
To make such cooperation sustainable, education is also needed, starting at school. People should realize that entrepreneurship is less about quick profit and more about responsibility and purpose. And that science is not some abstract pursuit disconnected from reality but a tool for delivering breakthrough solutions in the economy, security and medicine.
The conference is an important step. But what matters even more is what happens between conferences. What’s needed is real work: working groups created, initiatives launched, reforms supported, and so on. Only then will real change take place.