C-ANPROM/EUC/NON/0052 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Takeda * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around and industrial policy agenda, including the Pharma Package, Biotech Act, Life Sciences Strategy, and related digital and innovation frameworks. More information here

After more than three decades in the pharmaceutical industry, I know one thing: science transforms lives, but policy determines whether innovation thrives or stalls. That reality shapes outcomes for patients — and for Europe’s competitiveness. Today, Europeans stand at a defining moment. The choices we make now will determine whether Europe remains a global leader in life sciences or we watch that leadership slip away. It’s worth reminding ourselves of the true value of Europe’s life sciences industry and the power we have as a united bloc to protect it as a European good. Europe has an illustrious track record in medical discovery, from the first antibiotics to the discovery of DNA and today’s advanced biologics. Still today, our region remains an engine of medical breakthroughs, powered by an extraordinary ecosystem of innovators in the form of start-ups, small and medium-sized enterprises, academic labs, and university hospitals. This strength benefits patients through access to clinical trials and cutting-edge treatments. It also makes life sciences a strategic pillar of Europe’s economy. The economic stakes Life sciences is not just another industry for Europe. It’s a growth engine, a source of resilience and a driver of scientific sovereignty. The EU is already home to some of the world’s most talented scientists, thriving academic institutions and research clusters, and a social model built on universal access to healthcare. These assets are powerful, yet they only translate into future success if supported by a legislative environment that rewards innovation. > Life sciences is not just another industry for Europe. It’s a growth engine, a > source of resilience and a driver of scientific sovereignty. This is also an industry that supports 2.3 million jobs and contributes over €200 billion to the EU economy each year — more than any other sector. EU pharmaceutical research and development spending grew from €27.8 billion in 2010 to €46.2 billion in 2022, an average annual increase of 4.4 percent. A success story, yes — but one under pressure. While Europe debates, others act Over the past two decades, Europe has lost a quarter of its share of global investment to other regions. This year — for the first time — China overtook both the United States and Europe in the number of new molecules discovered. China has doubled its share of industry sponsored clinical trials, while Europe’s share has halved, leaving 60,000 European patients without the opportunity to participate in trials of the next generation of treatments. Why does this matter? Because every clinical trial site that moves elsewhere means a patient in Europe waits longer for the next treatment — and an ecosystem slowly loses competitiveness. Policy determines whether innovation can take root. The United States and Asia are streamlining regulation, accelerating approvals and attracting capital at unprecedented scale. While Europe debates these matters, others act. A world moving faster And now, global dynamics are shifting in unprecedented ways. The United States’ administration’s renewed push for a Most Favored Nation drug pricing policy — designed to tie domestic prices to the lowest paid in developed markets — combined with the potential removal of long-standing tariff exemptions for medicines exported from Europe, marks a historic turning point. A fundamental reordering of the pharmaceutical landscape is underway. The message is clear: innovation competitiveness is now a geopolitical priority. Europe must treat it as such. A once-in-a-generation reset The timing couldn’t be better. As we speak, Europe is rewriting the pharmaceutical legislation that will define the next 20 years of innovation. This is a rare opportunity, but only if reforms strengthen, rather than weaken, Europe’s ability to compete in life sciences. To lead globally, Europe must make choices and act decisively. A triple A framework — attract, accelerate, access — makes the priorities clear: * Attract global investment by ensuring strong intellectual property protection, predictable regulation and competitive incentives — the foundations of a world-class innovation ecosystem. * Accelerate the path from science to patients. Europe’s regulatory system must match the speed of scientific progress, ensuring that breakthroughs reach patients sooner. * Ensure equitable and timely access for all European patients. No innovation should remain inaccessible because of administrative delays or fragmented decision-making across 27 systems. These priorities reinforce each other, creating a virtuous cycle that strengthens competitiveness, improves health outcomes and drives sustainable growth. > Europe has everything required to shape the future of medicine: world-class > science, exceptional talent, a 500-million-strong market and one of the most > sophisticated pharmaceutical manufacturing bases in the world. Despite flat or declining public investment in new medicines across most member states over the past 20 years, the research-based pharmaceutical industry has stepped up, doubling its contributions to public pharmaceutical expenditure from 12 percent to 24 percent between 2018 and 2023. In effect, we have financed our own innovation. No other sector has done this at such scale. But this model is not sustainable. Pharmaceutical innovation must be treated not as a cost to contain, but as a strategic investment in Europe’s future. The choice before us Europe has everything required to shape the future of medicine: world-class science, exceptional talent, a 500-million-strong market and one of the most sophisticated pharmaceutical manufacturing bases in the world. What we need now is an ambition equal to those assets. If we choose innovation, we secure Europe’s jobs, research and competitiveness — and ensure European patients benefit first from the next generation of medical breakthroughs. A wrong call will be felt for decades. The next chapter for Europe is being written now. Let us choose the path that keeps Europe leading, competing and innovating: for our economies, our societies and, above all, our patients. Choose Europe. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The ultimate controlling entity is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The political advertisement is linked to the Critical Medicines Act. More information here.

Today, as the world reaches a critical juncture in the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria, the EU must choose: match scientific breakthroughs with political will and investment or retreat, putting two decades of hard-won progress at risk. Having saved over 70 million lives, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (the Global Fund) has proven what smart, sustained investment can achieve.  But the impact of its work — the lives protected, the life expectancy prolonged, the systems strengthened, the innovations deployed — is now under threat due to declining international funding.  > The real question is no longer whether the EU can afford to invest in the > Global Fund, but whether it can afford to let these hard-won gains unravel. The real question is no longer whether the EU can afford to invest in the Global Fund, but whether it can afford to let these hard-won gains unravel. Declining international funding, climate change, conflict and drug resistance are reversing decades of progress. HIV prevention is hampered by rising criminalization and attacks on key populations, with 1.3 million new infections in 2024 — far above targets. TB remains the deadliest infectious disease, worsened by spreading multidrug resistance, even in Europe. Malaria faces growing resistance to insecticides and drugs, as well as the impacts of extreme weather. Without urgent action and sustained investment, these threats could result in a dangerous resurgence of all three diseases. The stakes could not be higher  The Global Fund’s latest results reveal extraordinary progress. In 2024 alone: * 25.6 million people received lifesaving antiretroviral therapy, yet 630,000 still died of AIDS-related causes; * 7.4 million people were treated for TB, with innovations like AI-powered diagnostics reaching frontline workers in Ukraine; and * malaria deaths, primarily among African children under five, have been halved over two decades, with 2.2 billion mosquito nets distributed and ten countries eliminating malaria since 2020. Yet one child still dies every minute from this treatable disease.  What makes this moment unprecedented is not just the scale of the challenge, but the scale of the opportunity. Thanks to extraordinary scientific breakthroughs, we now have the tools to turn the tide:  * lenacapavir, a long-acting antiretroviral, offers new hope for the possibility of HIV-free generations; * dual active ingredient mosquito nets combine physical protection with intelligent vector control, transforming malaria prevention; and  * AI-driven TB screening and diagnostics are revolutionizing early detection and treatment, even in the most fragile settings. Some of these breakthroughs reflect Europe’s continued research and development and the private sector’s leadership in global health. BASF’s dual-active-ingredient mosquito nets, recently distributed by the millions in Nigeria, are redefining malaria prevention by combining physical protection with intelligent vector control. Delft Imaging’s ultra-portable digital X-ray devices are enabling TB screening in remote and fragile settings, while Siemens Healthineers is helping deploy cutting-edge AI software to support TB triage and diagnosis.  But they must be deployed widely and equitably to reach those who need them most. That is precisely what the Global Fund enables: equitable access to cutting-edge solutions, delivered through community-led systems that reach those most often left behind. A defining moment for EU Leadership The EU has a unique chance to turn this crisis into an opportunity. The upcoming G20 summit and the Global Fund’s replenishment are pivotal moments.  President Ursula von der Leyen and Commissioner Síkela can send a clear, unequivocal signal: Europe will not stop at “almost”. It will lead until the world is free of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.  The Global Fund is a unique partnership that combines financial resources with technical expertise, community engagement and inclusive governance. It reaches those often left behind — those criminalized, marginalized or excluded from health systems.  > Even in Ukraine, amid the devastation of war, the Global Fund partnership has > ensured continuity of HIV and TB services — proof that smart investments > deliver impact, even in crisis. Its model of country ownership and transparency aligns with Africa’s agenda for health sovereignty and with the EU’s commitment to equity and human rights. Even in Ukraine, amid the devastation of war, the Global Fund partnership has ensured continuity of HIV and TB services — proof that smart investments deliver impact, even in crisis. The cost of inaction Some may point to constraints in the Multiannual Financial Framework. But history shows that the EU has consistently stepped up, even in difficult fiscal times. The instruments exist. What’s needed now is leadership to use them. Failure to act would unravel decades of progress. Resurgent epidemics would claim lives, destabilize economies and undermine global health security. The cost of inaction far exceeds the price of investment. For the EU, the risks are strategic as well as moral. Stepping back now would erode the EU’s credibility as champion of human rights and global responsibility. It would send the wrong message, at precisely the wrong time.  Ukraine demonstrates what is at stake: with Global Fund support, millions continue to receive HIV and TB services despite war. Cutting funding now would risk lives not only in Africa and Asia, but also in Europe’s own neighborhood. A call to action Ultimately, this isn’t a question of affordability, but one of foresight. Can the EU afford for the Global Fund not to be fully financed? The answer, for us, is a resounding no. We therefore urge the European Commission to announce a bold, multi-year financial commitment to the Global Fund at the G20.  This pledge would reaffirm the EU’s values and inspire other Team Europe partners to follow suit. It would also support ongoing reforms to further enhance the Global Fund’s efficiency, transparency and inclusivity. > Ultimately, this isn’t a question of affordability, but one of foresight. Can > the EU afford for the Global Fund not to be fully financed? The answer, for > us, is a resounding no. This is more than a funding decision. It is a moment to define the kind of world we choose to build: one where preventable diseases no longer claim lives, where health equity is a reality and where solidarity triumphs over short-termism. Now is the time to reaffirm Europe’s leadership. To prove that when it comes to global health, we will never stop until the fight is won.

Policymakers are overlooking a $370 billion market that will determine whether climate goals succeed or fail.  In the grand narrative of the clean energy transition, materials like lithium, rare earths and silicon dominate headlines. Yet the most strategically important materials for this transition may be hiding in plain sight, dismissed by policymakers as environmental villains rather than recognized as the enablers of human progress they truly are. The $370 billion blind spot Polyolefins — the family of materials that includes polyethylene and polypropylene — represent perhaps the greatest strategic oversight in contemporary clean industry policy Here is a reality check. Polyolefins represent a global market approaching $370 billion, growing at over 5 percent annually.1,2 They make up nearly half of all plastics consumed in Europe.3 By 2034, global production is expected to hit 371 million tons.4  Yet in the European Union’s Clean Industrial Deal — a €100 billion strategy for industrial competitiveness — polyolefins receive barely a mention.4 This represents a profound strategic miscalculation. While policymakers focus on securing access to exotic critical materials like lithium and cobalt, they overlook the fact that polyolefins are already critical materials— they simply happen to be abundant rather than scarce. In the infrastructure-intensive clean energy transition ahead, abundance is not a weakness; it is the ultimate strategic advantage. > While policymakers focus on securing access to exotic critical materials like > lithium and cobalt, they overlook the fact that polyolefins are already > critical materials. The EU’s REPowerEU plan calls for 1,236 GW of renewable capacity by 2030 — more than double today’s levels.4 Every offshore wind farm, solar array and electric grid connection depends on polyolefins. They insulate cables, protect components and form structural parts of turbines and solar panels. Every solar panel relies on polyolefin elastomers to protect its inner workings for up to 30 years, even in harsh weather.8 And every grid connection depends on polyethylene-insulated cables to carry electricity efficiently across long distances. 7 Multiply these requirements across thousands of installations, and the strategic importance of polyolefins becomes undeniable. Yet, currently, the policy framework treats these materials as afterthoughts, focusing instead on the relatively small quantities of rare elements in generators and inverters while ignoring the massive volumes of polyolefins that make the entire system possible. Beyond energy: the hidden dependencies The strategic importance of polyolefins extends far beyond energy infrastructure. As one example, modern medical systems depend fundamentally on polyolefin materials for syringes, IV bags, tubing and protective equipment. Global food security increasingly depends on polyolefin-based packaging systems that extend shelf life, reduce waste and enable distribution networks — feeding billions of people. Meanwhile, water infrastructure relies on polyethylene pipes engineered for 100-year lifespans. These applications are rarely considered alongside energy priorities — a dangerous fragmentation of strategic thinking. The waste challenge and a circular solution Let’s be clear, plastic waste is a real environmental challenge demanding urgent action. However, the solution is not abandoning these essential materials, it is building the infrastructure to capture their full value in circular systems. The fundamental error in current approaches is treating waste as a material problem rather than a systems problem. Europe currently captures only 23 percent of polyolefin waste for recycling, despite these materials representing nearly two-thirds of all post-consumer plastic waste.3 That’s not because the material can’t be recycled. The infrastructure to do so isn’t at the scale needed to collect, sort and recycle waste to meet future circular feedstock needs. Polyolefins are among the most recyclable materials we have. They can be mechanically recycled multiple times. And with chemical recycling, they can even be broken down to their molecular building blocks and rebuilt into virgin-quality material. That’s not just circularity, it’s circularity at scale. This matters because the EU’s target of 24 percent material circularity by 20305 is unlikely to be met without polyolefins. However, current frameworks treat them as obstacles rather than enablers of circularity. The economic transformation The transition represents an economic transformation, creating competitive advantages for regions implementing it effectively. A region processing 100,000 tons of polyolefin waste annually could capture €100-130 million in additional economic value while creating up to 1,000 jobs.6 > A region processing 100,000 tons of polyolefin waste annually could capture > €100-130 million in additional economic value while creating up to 1,000 jobs. At the end of the day, the clean energy transition must be affordable. Polyolefins help make that possible. They’re cheaper, lighter and longer lasting than many alternatives. Manufacturers with access to cost-effective recycled feedstocks can reduce input costs by 20-40 percent compared with virgin materials. Polyethylene pipes cost 60-70 percent less than steel alternatives while lasting twice as long.9 These aren’t marginal gains. They’re system-level efficiencies that make the difference between success and failure at scale. The strategic choice The real challenge isn’t technical, it’s institutional. Polyolefins sit at the crossroads of materials, environmental and industrial policy, yet these areas are treated as separate domains. There’s also a geopolitical angle. Unlike lithium or rare earths, polyolefins can be produced from diverse feedstocks — natural gas, biomass and even captured CO2 — enabling domestic production and supply chain resilience. This flexibility is a major asset, but current policies largely overlook it. > The path forward requires recognizing polyolefins as strategic assets rather > than environmental problems. The path forward requires recognizing polyolefins as strategic assets rather than environmental problems. This means including them in critical materials assessments — not because they are scarce, but because they are essential. It means coordinating research and development efforts rather than leaving them to fragmented market forces. Most importantly, it means recognizing that the clean energy transition will succeed or fail based on our ability to build infrastructure at unprecedented scale and speed. And that infrastructure will be built primarily from materials that combine performance, abundance, sustainability and cost-effectiveness in ways only polyolefins can provide. The choice facing policymakers is clear: continue treating polyolefins as problems to be managed or recognize them as strategic assets enabling the clean energy future. The regions that understand this integration first will shape the global economy for decades to come. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Grand View Research. (2024). Polyolefin Market Size, Share, Growth | Industry Report, 2030. Retrieved from https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/polyolefin-market 2. Fortune Business Insights. (2024). Polyolefin Market Size, Share & Growth | Global Report [2032]. Retrieved from https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/polyolefin-market-102373 3. Plastics Europe. (2025). Polyolefins. Retrieved from https://plasticseurope.org/plastics-explained/a-large-family/polyolefins-2/ 4. European Commission. (2025). Clean Industrial Deal. Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/clean-industrial-deal_en 5. European Commission. (2022). Circular economy action plan. Retrieved from https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_en 6. Watkins, E., & Schweitzer, J.P. (2018). Moving towards a circular economy for plastics in the EU by 2030. Institute for European Environmental Policy. Retrieved from https://ieep.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Think-2030-A-circular-economy-for-plastics-by-2030-1. 7. Institute of Sustainable Studies (2025). EU Circular Economy Act aims to double circularity rate by 2030 EU Circular Economy Act – Institute of Sustainability Studies 8. López-Escalante, M.C., et al. (2016). Polyolefin as PID-resistant encapsulant material in PV modules. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 144, 691-699. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927024815005206 9. PE100+ Association. (2014). Polyolefin Sewer Pipes – 100 Year Lifetime Expectancy. Retrieved from https://www.pe100plus.com/PPCA/Polyolefin-Sewer-Pipes-100-Year-Lifetime-Expectancy-p1430.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen took aim on Tuesday at China’s industrial overproduction, export restrictions and its support for Russia’s war against Ukraine. In a statement to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, Von der Leyen stressed that “our relations with China must be rooted in a clear-eyed assessment of the new reality.” The remarks set the stage for a contentious summit later this month at which EU leaders will raise Beijing’s “no-limits partnership” with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. “We can say that China is de facto enabling Russia’s war economy, and we cannot accept this,” she told European lawmakers. On the economic front, the relationship between Europe and China will need rebalancing, de-risking and a diplomatic boost when it comes to climate change and environmental issues, Von der Leyen argued.  She started by complimenting China as great global civilization that over the past 50 years has become a great global power. But her praise quickly gave way to criticism, as she accused Beijing of operating outside of international rules and flooding global markets “with subsidized overcapacity — not just to boost its own industries, but to choke international competition.” China runs “the largest trade surplus in the history of mankind,” she went on to say, while European companies were finding it harder to do business on the Chinese market where they faced systematic discrimination. The increasing barriers faced by European companies in China include requiring foreign companies to keep localized staff; host research and development functions; and keep all IT data in the country, according to an EU Chamber of Commerce in China survey. “I’ve always said it: Europe is fully committed to result-oriented engagement with China,” von der Leyen said, calling on Beijing to engage in a meaningful dialogue that leads to actual change. “If our partnership is to go forward, we need a genuine rebalancing.”  For all von der Leyen’s finger wagging, the EU is looking to copy some of China’s more successful industrial policies, including its own technology transfers and procurement laws.  Under its newly revised rules on state aid, EU governments are being encouraged to include European preference criteria in their bidding processes, as well as other forms of aid, particularly as the bloc looks to create a domestic battery sector. In the Automotive Action Plan — the EU’s strategy for making its carmakers competitive — the executive has said it would look into direct support for European manufacturers. The EU is making public funds available for battery makers, including for non-EU companies so long as they are in a joint venture with a domestic partner and sharing know-how, technical expertise and technology. The EU-China summit, called to mark 50 years of diplomatic relations, will be held in Beijing on July 24. A second summit day has been canceled. President Xi Jinping is not expected to attend, and the Chinese delegation will be led by premier Li Qiang.

Bill Anderson is the CEO of Bayer. Europe was once the epicenter of progress. After centuries of the Dark Ages, a radical new way of acquiring knowledge — the scientific method — cemented the continent’s place at the apex of civilization. Problem is, that was around 400 years ago. Today, Europe is home to strong research universities and prodigious talent, but it has been losing ground, particularly to the U.S. and China. In the 1990s, for example, half of all new medicines originated in Europe — now, the figure’s down to one in five. And the life sciences is just one of many such industries. Europe must reverse this trend, and now is the time to act. We stand on the precipice of a new world order, with increasing trade uncertainty and multipolarity, and it’s not yet clear how things will shake out. In this period of flux, Europe’s leaders rightly want to elevate science and innovation to the heart of its economy. But for this to become a reality, its member countries need to step up their game in terms of simplifying regulation. Starting a business in Italy or Greece, for example, can take months due to needless hurdles like in-person meetings, notary fees and bank account setups. It’s no wonder that advances in AI are almost exclusively happening in the U.S. and China. The biotech revolution attracts 75 percent of its talent in the U.S. and Asia, and Brazil is at the forefront of agricultural innovation. Meanwhile Europe is all too often sitting on the sidelines, asking “what’s allowed?” rather than “what’s possible?” Here’s the thing: Europe can produce world-changing innovation. In fact, some of today’s pioneering startups, like CRISPR Therapeutics, emerged from Europe. But thanks to a more accommodating regulatory environment, proximity to research hubs and access to venture capital, these companies have expanded heavily in the U.S. This isn’t to say the U.S. is without problems, or that Europe should try to refashion itself into Silicon Valley. In fact, Europe publishes about twice as many scientific articles as the U.S., and is home to multiple research hubs that foster international collaboration. However, we need a distinctly European course correction to once again unleash Europe’s innovative spirit. I am confident that with the right mindset and conditions, this can be done — but not if we continue down the path of business — or rather, bureaucracy — as usual. As last year’s Draghi report on EU competitiveness stated: “The only way to become more productive is for Europe to radically change.” I’ve personally had the rare privilege of working and living in five different European countries, including in Germany for the last two years, as the CEO of Bayer — a 160-year-old life sciences company headquartered in Germany. And we’ve now kicked off the most radical transformation since the company’s founding. Upending decades of tradition is not for the faint of heart, but sometimes it’s essential. And here are a few lessons worth bearing in mind, whether modernizing a company or a continent: Firstly, it’s time to simplify regulations and embrace the new technologies required to solve our biggest challenges, just like the U.S., Canada and other countries have already done. The U.K., for example, passed a bill allowing the development and marketing of gene-edited crops in 2023. As last year’s Draghi report on EU competitiveness stated: “The only way to become more productive is for Europe to radically change.” | Teresa Suarez/EFE via EPA On this front, we welcome the EU’s increased openness toward gene editing in agriculture, which carries tremendous potential to help farmers adapt to climate change. For instance, Italy showed courageous leadership last year, breaking with two decades of policy to allow the first field trial of a gene-edited crop, which scientists developed to improve the rice plant’s resistance to a prevalent fungus. The rest of the continent ought to follow this lead. Next, Europe also needs investment. While innovation in Europe has grown, prices for pharmaceuticals have decreased. And why is it that one of the most advanced continents, with a market of 450 million people, is seen less and less as a place to invest for developing the drugs of tomorrow? We need to change that. Everyone deserves reliable and affordable access to medicines, and everyone has a role to play. Investing in research and development (R&D) is the beating heart of the life sciences — and it comes at an enormous financial cost: More than 90 percent of pharmaceutical research ends in failure. But without R&D, our industry would be dead on arrival and have little to offer patients. So, it’s time for Europe to step up and view paying fair prices for new pharmaceutical innovation as an investment in the future — not just another cost to be minimized. At Bayer, we operate in a new model called “dynamic shared ownership,” where employees enjoy the autonomy to make decisions, share resources and direct their focus toward the biggest priorities. And we’re seeing the model pay off already, with rapid growth in our pharmaceuticals business — together, our two biggest launch medicines have grown 80 percent in sales year over year, and one is now a blockbuster. The truth is, the expat scientists who come to Europe won’t have an easy time translating their discoveries into impactful products and therapies without systemic changes. Supporting scientists also requires robust IP protection, a speedier regulatory framework and a better environment for high-risk, high-reward investors. Any innovative life sciences company in Europe would welcome these dramatic changes to the status quo. And as the world’s economic order shifts, it’s Europe’s turn to level the playing field. In 50 years, will we look back on 2025 as the moment our continent rose to the challenge and opened its arms to the future? Will we celebrate the biotech hub of Berlin as we now do Boston, with scientists flocking there to start companies, test cures for diseases and develop tools to help farmers feed the world? Or will we utter a collective sigh, pondering what could have been? It’s time to decide.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Jette Nietzard, Co-Chefin der Grünen Jugend, provoziert mit Strategie: Ob ACAB-Pullover im Bundestag, Entgleisungen zu Christian Lindner oder radikale Äußerungen auf Parteitagen und in Interviews – ihre Methode ist kalkuliert. Erst provozieren, dann relativieren, dann in ihrer Bubble den Diskurs dominieren. Gordon Repinski analysiert, wie Nietzard mit maximaler Polarisierung maximale Aufmerksamkeit erzeugt – und warum das die Grünen vor eine Zerreißprobe stellt. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview spricht Forschungsministerin Dorothee Bär (CSU) erst über Nietzard und dann über Trumps Feldzug gegen Harvard, die Bedrohung der Wissenschaftsfreiheit und ihre Pläne, internationale Top-Talente nach Deutschland zu holen. Dorothee Bär wurde für die POWERLIST 2025 nominiert – die Liste der 50 einflussreichsten Persönlichkeiten Deutschlands, zusammengestellt von WELT, POLITICO und Business Insider. Weitere Informationen zur POWERLIST findet ihr hier. Dazu: Friedrich Merz in Finnland, neue Außenpolitik-Signale – und wie Journalisten keine Bilder mehr vom Kanzler beim Boarding bekommen. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es morgens um 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team bringen euch jeden Morgen auf den neuesten Stand in Sachen Politik — kompakt, europäisch, hintergründig. Und für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Unser Berlin Playbook-Newsletter liefert jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Hier gibt es alle Informationen und das kostenlose Playbook-Abo. Mehr von Berlin Playbook-Host und Executive Editor von POLITICO in Deutschland, Gordon Repinski, gibt es auch hier:   Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski.

Nick Dearden is the director of Global Justice Now. Peter Maybarduk is the Access to Medicines director of Public Citizen. Both are members of the People’s Medicines Alliance. U.S. President Donald Trump has more tariff chaos up his sleeve, and medicine in his sights. This week, he issued an executive order blaming America’s sky-high drug prices on other countries — and pharmaceutical tariffs could be next.  Panic is starting to set in. Tens of thousands of pharmaceutical workers in Ireland are worried about their jobs; politicians across the EU and U.K. are concerned the industry will pull investment and reinvest across the Atlantic; and there are even warnings of higher prices and drug shortages — particularly for generic medicines — in the U.S. But it is the pharmaceutical industry itself that’s stoking these fears. Big Pharma corporations never miss a chance to turn crisis into opportunity and to boost their already inflated profits. And now, they’re using the opening Trump has given them to demand the removal of regulations they dislike. Under the pretense that Europe is no longer a profitable place to invest and manufacture, drug makers are demanding all manner of concessions, including looser regulation on clinical trials and tighter monopoly protection of the intellectual property that underpins their power. Most of these have nothing to do with making Europe a better place to manufacture drugs and everything to do with raising prices. And it should make us very suspicious of lobby group claims that “unless Europe delivers rapid, radical policy change then pharmaceutical research, development and manufacturing is increasingly likely to be directed towards the US.” Since Trump has Big Pharma’s back, we can surely expect he’ll push their wishlist — yet another reason governments have to reject his attempts to strong-arm them. Meanwhile, a similar move is afoot in the U.K., with pharma companies pushing the government to reform the system that helps the National Health Service keep a lid on medicine costs. The government has already granted them a review. None of this should surprise us. Why wouldn’t Big Pharma latch on to the opportunity of Trump’s tariff threats to make price-gouging easier, even if it’s one of the most profitable industries in the world already? The truth is, it’s perfectly profitable to produce medicines in Europe as is — it just isn’t profitable enough for an industry that feels entitled to sky-high returns. According to the pharmaceutical industry, it must secure these returns to invest in a new generation of medicines, the cost of which is high. But sadly, even handing blank checks to Big Pharma wouldn’t get us the medicines we need at a price we can afford. Instead, it just means “unprofitable” but potentially devastating problems like antimicrobial resistance will be ignored, while companies try to create the next blockbuster drug that our health services won’t be able to afford. Big Pharma is a bully. It will take what it can get and then come back for more. This isn’t to say Trump’s tariffs wouldn’t create havoc in supply chains and hit generic production where margins are low. Indeed, generic manufacturers are warning that any increase in production costs could lead to drug shortages and higher prices — including for U.S. patients. Generic manufacturers are warning that any increase in production costs could lead to drug shortages and higher prices — including for U.S. patients. | Allison Dinner/EFE via EPA But European governments need to take this as an opportunity for restructuring how they make medicines, and create a model that serves the public interest. Of course, this will cost money. But medicines cost the public a small fortune anyway. And if we’re going to be spending, let’s at least ensure we’re getting the medicines we want and aren’t paying twice for the final product. What we need is to work across Europe to build world-class, publicly controlled medical research capacity. Then, rather than handing over that research — or, indeed, the patient data underlying it — to the pharma cartel, we need to develop a different model of intellectual property protection that allows for the sharing and licensing of research in a way that supports international collaboration to produce better medicines for all. Such an approach wouldn’t just undercut Trump’s plans to enhance U.S. power, it would also mean no longer treating lifesaving medical knowledge as commercial property that only the richest can afford. Knowledge is the lifeblood of modern society, we are told — so, why are we allowing private interests to wall it off for decades? In the meantime, we need to build manufacturing capacity as well. The public sector doesn’t have to produce every medicine our society needs, but in an increasingly insecure world, we do need more homegrown capacity. That means a more balanced range of private sector companies involved in medicines, as well as better public sector capacity, so we can’t be held to ransom. Finally, given the long-term impact that cuts to U.S. and European aid will have on health care globally, we should work with countries in the global south to help boost their production capacity too. As things stand, too many nations have been discouraged from addressing their local health needs. And we should be supporting them with our know-how, technology transfer and a different intellectual property model. We can have a world where everyone has access to the medicines they need. But both Trump and Big Pharma will push us in the opposite direction. It’s time for something else.

PARIS ― European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Monday slammed U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign against American higher education as she unveiled a half-billion-euro plan to attract foreign researchers. “The role of science in today’s world is questioned. The investment in fundamental, free and open research is questioned. What a gigantic miscalculation,” von der Leyen said. “Science has no passport, no gender, no ethnicity or political party.” Appearing alongside French President Emmanuel Macron at Paris’ storied Sorbonne University on Monday, von der Leyen said the “Choose Europe for Science” initiative would put forward a €500 million program from 2025 to 2027 to attract foreign researchers to “help support the best and the brightest researchers and scientists from Europe and around the world. “ Several speakers at the event hit out at Trump’s efforts to gut federal research funding and threats to cut funding to universities like Harvard to the tune of billions of dollars over conservative criticisms of higher education and allegations of antisemitism on campuses. Both French Minister of Higher Education Philippe Baptiste and Robert Proctor, a prominent professor of the history of science at Stanford, called what’s happening across the Atlantic a “reverse enlightenment.”  The head of the European executive did not name-check American researchers or Trump, but her targets were clear. She even framed her speech around the story of Marie Curie — the groundbreaking, Nobel Prize-winning scientist who fled Russian-occupied Poland for France.  Von der Leyen also announced she would put forward a “European Innovation Act” and a “Startup and Scaleup Strategy” to cut red tape and boost access to venture capital to help turn innovative science into business opportunities. She added that she wants EU countries to spend 3 percent of their gross domestic product on research by 2030.