Patrizia Nanz, president of the EUI: "Digital sovereignty is the prerequisite for an independent Europe"

The European University Institute (EUI) is, in the words of The Economist, the Hogwarts of the European Union. And Germany's Patrizia Nanz is its Dumbledore. The EUI, located in Florence, opened its doors to the editor and director of Agenda Pública, Marc López Plana, to talk with its president about the institute's work, Europe's role today and the threats to the future of the European project, among other topics.

During the conversation, Nanz expressed optimism about her work at the helm of the EUI, noting that it continues to pursue "excellence in research and education" and acknowledging that the institute's research work is "a key element in providing a way forward for the institutions of the Member States and Brussels". Therefore, reading it on the eve of Ursula von der Leyen's State of the European Union (SOTEU) address is essential for uncovering the ins and outs of Europe's future.

The role of the EUI and Nanz in the future of the European Union is key. From Florence, the German warns that "the engine of social transformation is digital sovereignty" and alerts us that "Trump understands this, China understands this" and we Europeans "should wake up". For all these reasons, she is a key figure in addressing the Europe of today.
 

Do you think the European University Institute is the laboratory that the States were asking for in Europe?

I believe it is exactly a laboratory for Europe. It was founded in 1972 by the then six member states of the Union. It opened its doors in 1976, precisely with the mission of reflecting on the direction of the European project and providing guidance to the institutions in general, and also to societies.

So the question is, or was then and still is now, to think about Europe, even before we had a fully established European Union. Now that the European Union is in crisis, we must rethink what it should look like.

We are a laboratory in the truest sense, and also a miniature Europe, in the sense that we bring together researchers and scholars from across the continent and beyond.
So there is no dominant national culture, neither academic nor cultural. And therefore, it is really between the different perspectives that this idea of Europe is forged.

I know there are many alumni now working in the European Commission and in other European institutions. How does the European Institute transfer its academic knowledge into policymaking today?

The transfer is not only measured through the alumni, but also through people and ideas more broadly. Of course, there are the alumni. Around half of them—some 4,000 today—we know did not go into academia or become professors, but instead entered public institutions, became civil servants, or went to work for NGOs, the media, and so on.

So this is quite a large number we can rely on. And they are truly trained in the most authentic European sense, because they become European while socializing here. But the transfer also happens through people’s ideas. I experience this every day. We are in real contact with policymakers, but also with NGOs and the private sector, in order to shift ideas about policy—so the transfer comes both through people and through ideas.

"We do not see ourselves as a factory of civil servants, but rather as a factory of people who have the capacity to produce, whether in the public or private sector"

So we never imagined ourselves as a factory producing officials, but rather as a place to step back, question assumptions, and thereby play a very useful role, whether in public service or in the private sector.

But you know that in academia there is a major debate about whether universities are capable of transferring knowledge and turning it into policy. What does this mean to you? What is your position in this debate about the role of academia—not in policymaking itself, but in the ability to influence policies and policymakers?

It is a very important question, one that I have often faced in previous roles, as I worked at the science–policy interface. It is the famous gap between knowledge and action. And after 20 years of working on this interface, and experimenting with different formats, I can say that the main issue lies with political institutions, which find it very difficult to absorb knowledge.

It is not just that science fails to communicate; it is also that, for instance, ministries are structured in ways that are counterproductive.

Another problem is that, given the multiple challenges and crises we face, yesterday’s answers no longer work. We need to imagine different types of institutions in order to address these issues.

So first, we must rethink institutions, and then consider how science could interact with them. This requires places for co-creation. We need an empirical, research-based foundation to analyze certain issues. But then, of course, we also require the knowledge of people from other sectors to understand the full picture.

"The university must create a space that allows us to take a step back, analyse the situation, and then come up with solutions"

So, in my view, the greatest service a university can provide is to create a space. Not so much to feed directly into the policy cycle, but to ask what the real issue is, in what context it is linked to other issues. To take a step back to see the bigger picture—and only then move towards solutions.

Do you believe the research currently being conducted at your Institute is capable of influencing policy, both in European institutions and in the Member States?

Not necessarily. I mean, we also carry out very practical research, for example, on water regulation or on energy, electricity, and gas. There, the link with policymakers is obvious. But when we reflect on competitiveness, on what it should mean for the future, or on democracy, it may seem more abstract.

In the long run, however, I believe this could be a key element in providing a way forward for both the Member States and Brussels. So yes, certainly.
 
After a year and a half as president of the European University Institute, what are your thoughts on this first term?

When I arrived, I tried to understand the situation—even before becoming president. I had completed my PhD here 25 years ago, so the Institute was not entirely new to me. Of course, more than two decades ago, the debate about Europe was very lively because it was a constitutional moment. Today, interest in Europe is much weaker, both in the Member States and in society at large.

"Universities are under attack, and Europe does not occupy a prominent place on the international agenda"

It is a more difficult moment to be a university oriented towards Europe. On the one hand, universities are under attack, but on the other, Europe often does not rank high on the agenda. That was my first observation. I also tried to understand how the departments had evolved—they became much larger.

We now have the Robert Schuman Centre, the School of Transnational Governance… So I sought to take stock of what exists, but also to reflect, together with faculty and researchers, on what the role of universities should be. We created a working group, and even obtained funding, to study the issue of academic freedom—and also the responsibility that comes with this freedom towards society, since we are publicly funded.

That was my first point. My second is that this is not only a university, but also an international organization. Its mission is that of a university, but structurally it is intergovernmental, not merely international. This means it can host governmental organizations. I believe, and the founding document states, that there should be a connection with societies and institutions at large.

So how do we do this? First, we said we must rethink our "mission" Once that was clear, we asked: What is the long-term vision that gives us direction? So I went back to the founding document and asked: What does it mean today to have three dimensions? One is, obviously, excellence in research and education.

The second is communication beyond academia. I strengthened this considerably, because when I arrived, it was not strong. So it is really about building communication from the very beginning of research, towards societies and institutions.

And the third dimension is collaboration with social and economic actors. So how can we create spaces where our knowledge interacts with that of other actors—sharing ideas and refining the knowledge we produce?

For this, we are now building infrastructures—not just projects, but infrastructures to host other actors. Let me give you a couple of examples.

First, we will launch a security initiative where, instead of merely networking—as I think has sometimes been the case at the Munich Conference—we can hold in-depth policy dialogues with Member States on EU security issues. Not only on defense, but also on energy, food, democracy, disinformation, and so on.

Second, to give another example, a technology hub. Today, without technology, we cannot understand societies. And the social sciences and humanities have a precise role here. They are crucial to guide societies.

"We need digital sovereignty as a prerequisite for other forms of sovereignty: democratic, prosperity, food, etc."

It is not about technology per se, but about technology as a driver of social transformation. That is a crucial point for me. Today, if Europe wants to be independent in a geopolitical triangle with the United States and China, digital sovereignty is a precondition for any other kind of sovereignty: democracy, prosperity, food, energy, and so on.

Third, just to give one more example: how to reach citizens, which is one of the hardest challenges. We would like to fund an open lab, in a more public-oriented format, focusing on creativity to think about the future and also drawing on social imagination, together with artists.

This could take the form of a museum of the future, with exhibitions that are tangible for citizens, both digitally and physically, and also connected to Florence—which is very important to me and to the local Italian context.

Patrizia Nanz and Marc López chatting at the EUI headquarters in Florence Foto: Image courtesy of the EUI

What about the relationship with the media?

I started to reflect with the community here: what is the role of universities today? I believe it is not a good idea to become defensive and say: "We are excellent" That was precisely the argument made in the article in The Economist: that excellence alone is not enough.

There is increasing pushback —not only in the United States but also in Europe— against universities, particularly against the social sciences and humanities.

So I believe it is a good idea to show the necessity of social sciences and humanities. It is important that researchers, academics, and professors understand this and incorporate it into their responsibilities. We know it is a privilege to be here, but it is also a responsibility towards society.

Of course, some professors, academics, and researchers are natural communicators and do not need training. But we often provide training, and now we have a very strong communication unit to support them. Yet, as you mentioned, it is critical that they integrate communication into their research from the very beginning.

We can provide infrastructure—podcasts, videos, everything on the website. But it must also come from them. Interestingly, I find young researchers are very open and interested in this. So I think this is a good moment to rethink the role of science.

We are living in times of great polarization, where politics is frequently reduced to small adjustments rather than ideas. More than ever, we require not only evidence as the foundation of policymaking, but also the ability to engage with political forces, broaden shared understandings of problems, and identify differences as a basis for bold action. Without this, we will never act. That is why it is so important.

Do you think it is necessary for social scientists to better understand how politics and policymaking work?

Well, in my own career, I have worked in different sectors. I have changed roles, so I can act as a bridge. But I know how exhausting that is. I do not believe all scientists need to know how politics works.

What I do believe is that there is room for a new figure: a science–policy advisor, a kind of translator. Not just to turn peer-reviewed articles into digestible pieces for policymakers, but to truly bridge the gap between knowledge and action.

"Parliaments and governments also have an important role to play in bringing politics and science closer together"

I think we need to train these people—perhaps through a master’s program, though I am not sure yet. Parliaments and governments have a role to play here. And once trained, such advisors could work not just for one government, but across all Member States and EU institutions.

This role is essential, because we need more scientific evidence, and we also need a common ground from which to broaden the political forces behind it.

A few days ago, the U.S. Secretary of Health said we do not need experts. What do you think about that?

Of course we need experts.

Yes, but you know that some political actors and parties are now trying to convince society that we do not need experts. And you are the president of an institution that trains experts. How do you respond to this?

I think it requires self-reflection and self-criticism. This backlash against expertise has reasons we should take into account—for example, when experts act as though they do not need to communicate with the broader public.

But if we show that we are able to communicate —and also to listen— that is very important. We must be able to show that a specific piece of expertise fits into a larger picture. That would be the beginning of being visibly and legitimately useful.
 
What about the European University Institute as a global actor? Because, as you said at the beginning, you have many researchers from Europe, but also many from outside Europe.

First of all, when I arrived, I made it a priority to reorient our focus towards Europe. But that does not mean an inward-looking vision. On the contrary, I often find that outsiders have more hope and ambition for Europe than Europeans themselves. That is why their perspectives are so valuable.

I have seen this, for example, in my work with the G8, where policymakers and students from all continents show interest in European integration, the rule of law, and democracy. They want to study Europe, but they also bring important perspectives.

So I would say we have a global perspective, but our mission remains to help and support the European project.

Do you think now is the time to try to attract social scientists from the United States?

First, I would try to bring back the Europeans who left. That is my initial thought. More generally, in terms of diplomacy, I think it is, of course, right that people under threat should be able to come to Europe.

But if we were to see a brain drain from the United States, particularly of liberal forces, that would not be good in the long term for Europe either. I think we should strengthen liberal forces in U.S. civil society and academia. But of course, anyone who is threatened should be able to come.

Do you think it is possible to build a European public sphere?

That is precisely the Institute’s mission. That is why we are here. We create a kind of mini-Europe, bringing in all national perspectives. The question is: how to expand this? That was the subject of my PhD thesis—studying the difficulties of European public spheres.

As you know, public spheres are usually organized nationally, often through national media, which makes it very difficult to address European issues. That is why, once again, the two dimensions beyond research excellence—communication beyond academia and engagement with social and private actors across Member States—are so important. The ultimate goal is to build a European public sphere.

In my opinion, it is hard to build a European public sphere if we do not think, if we do not vote, for a president of the European Union.

That is a very difficult question. It is a normative and pragmatic answer. Symbolically, yes, for example, if there were a duel between two main candidates for the European Parliament elections, it would already bring about a small change.

But I would say that beyond symbolism, the bigger problem is the disconnect between politicians and citizens—everywhere, not only at EU level, but also nationally, and perhaps less so locally. In any case, the problem is democracy itself.

"From a pragmatic point of view, it would not be good to have a debate right now about whether we want more or less European federalism"

So it is not so much about whether we move towards more or less federalism—especially given that some Member States are increasingly nationalist and anti-European. Pragmatically, I do not think this debate is helpful right now. Instead, we should rethink institutions, because we have difficulty with political institutions being able to deliver solutions, and citizens being able to trust in those solutions.

European legislation makes up about 80% of national implementation, and then trickles down to the local level.
 
But we do not vote for this.

Exactly. That is also an issue of legitimacy. And if we wanted to, it would not be so complicated to rethink institutions so they can function more effectively. I believe the debate between over-regulation and deregulation is false. What we need is better regulation—not only simpler, but better.

Better and legitimate. That is the rule.

Exactly. We are now immersed in a major project to ensure that, vertically, these institutions work much better—for example, addressing the needs of both Member States and local levels. And with AI and other technologies, we could also open them up horizontally, making them more democratic.

If we pursue this type of reform, it would go a long way in solving the issue—not only reducing the disconnect between citizens, institutions, and real problems, but also better integrating scientific evidence into policymaking.

Before finishing, can you elaborate on the problem our democracies are facing?

Let me give you an example. I think many citizens —and increasingly politicians and officials too— feel we are at a crossroads: “make it or break it.” If we remain passive and not proactive, we will lose our independence.

We hear nationalist governments constantly invoke sovereignty. But if you look at the big picture —markets, energy, and other dimensions— it quickly becomes clear that the precondition for being able to decide for ourselves, for shaping the society we want, is digital sovereignty. This brings us back to The Economist article.

Even in historical examples, like silk production in Catalonia in the late Middle Ages, we see how production, trade, and technology were drivers of regional integration and social transformation.

Fast-forward to the 1950s: Jean Monnet, the intellectual father of the European Union, realized that coal and steel would be the basis for unity and prosperity after the war.

What is that starting point today?

Today, the starting point —the driver of social transformation— is digital sovereignty. It is not about technology, or innovation, or even the economy. As Draghi rightly says, it is about shaping societies and markets. Trump understands this, China understands this. And Europe must wake up.

But we are not in a strong position when it comes to digital sovereignty.

That is true. But if we act, we still have time. It does not mean we must have all critical infrastructure at the European level, but enough not to be fully dependent on the U.S. and China. We need to analyze which parts are truly critical.

And national governments that want sovereignty should realize this. No one can achieve it alone. We need a European consortium to act quickly. They would then understand that European sovereignty is not something negative, but essential for their own survival. Otherwise, Member States would lose all independence.

What legacy would you like to leave when you finish your mandate as president?

I would very much like to see the Institute become, once again, a true laboratory. A place with the time and space to reflect deeply, and to invite people from political or social spheres to take a step back and think more profoundly.

This would foster creativity and social and political imagination. As I said before: knowing how to think about public institutions, how to think about technology, in ways that lead to bold ideas—and to make the Institute truly a place for bold ideas, as it was conceived.