US Scientists Flee Abroad as Research Funding Cuts Deepen: Nature (nature.com) 64
US scientists are fleeing abroad in record numbers as the Trump administration slashes research funding, according to exclusive data analysis by Nature. Applications from American researchers for international positions surged 32% between January and March 2025 compared to the same period last year, while US-based users browsing overseas jobs jumped 35%.
The exodus accelerated in March as the administration intensified science cuts, with job views spiking 68% year-over-year. Applications to Canadian institutions increased 41%, while interest from Canadians in US positions plummeted 13%. Recent months have seen more than 200 federal HIV/AIDS research grants abruptly terminated, cuts to NIH COVID-19 funding revealed, and a $400 million reduction in research grants at Columbia University. "To see this big drop in views and applications to the US -- and the similar rise in those looking to leave -- is unprecedented," said James Richards, who leads Global Talent Solutions at Springer Nature.
European institutions are capitalizing on the talent migration. Aix-Marseille University launched its "Safe Place for Science" initiative with $17.2 million to sponsor researchers, while Germany's Max Planck Society created a Transatlantic Program offering positions to scientists "no longer able to work in the United States." The trend extends beyond Europe, with US-based views of Chinese science positions increasing 30% in the first quarter of 2025.
The exodus accelerated in March as the administration intensified science cuts, with job views spiking 68% year-over-year. Applications to Canadian institutions increased 41%, while interest from Canadians in US positions plummeted 13%. Recent months have seen more than 200 federal HIV/AIDS research grants abruptly terminated, cuts to NIH COVID-19 funding revealed, and a $400 million reduction in research grants at Columbia University. "To see this big drop in views and applications to the US -- and the similar rise in those looking to leave -- is unprecedented," said James Richards, who leads Global Talent Solutions at Springer Nature.
European institutions are capitalizing on the talent migration. Aix-Marseille University launched its "Safe Place for Science" initiative with $17.2 million to sponsor researchers, while Germany's Max Planck Society created a Transatlantic Program offering positions to scientists "no longer able to work in the United States." The trend extends beyond Europe, with US-based views of Chinese science positions increasing 30% in the first quarter of 2025.
Make it stop!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and thus spoketh the profit(sp?)
"We're gonna win so much you may even get tired of winning and you'll say please please it's too much winning we can't take it anymore"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Make it stop!! (Score:3)
Re:"researcher" (Score:4, Insightful)
Butt hurt, are you?
Consider that there's far more research than your Fox News memes going on in the US that directly benefits you and those around you. Loss of scientific leadership makes the US a second or third world nation while you're worrying about your fringey fears.
Science leads to products, products often lead to better lives. Soon you'll have your brutalist male urges satisfied, but will buy your products from the EU and China-- who'll have the patents, IP, and wealth.
Re: "researcher" (Score:2)
Re:"researcher" (Score:5, Informative)
You have non-Fox examples of great science that's lost funding, yes?
I do. Here's a whole list https://airtable.com/appjhyo9N... [airtable.com] .
Re: (Score:2)
Notice how many times Covid shows up on that table.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's sad that it's staring you in the face but you're unable to break out of the mind prison that you've built for yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have an IV drip of Kultist Kool-aid?
Are you really trying to say how it's a good thing that researchers are leaving the country because it's become an inhospitable environment for doing research?
You need to re-evaluate some very core thoughts around long-term risks. Oh, and you also need to stop posting the absolutely most ridiculous propaganda talking points - if we want to see that bullshit, we'll head over to Fox Noise like you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really trying to say how it's a good thing that researchers are leaving the country because it's become an inhospitable environment for doing research?
No, he seems to, in a joking manner, critique the funding of strictly ideologically aligned research with which he does not agree.
It's real (Score:5, Interesting)
I work for a big national lab and I can make a few observations:
a) Postdocs that have already accepted a job are having second thoughts. Statistically speaking, the likelihood of being detained by the ICE with a valid visa is probably about the same as the airplane suffering a catastrophic issue, but for human perception this does not matter. US is just not attractive any more. Nobody wants to enter a country where you are looked up with suspicion. The fact that the salary just dropped 10% in EUR is also not promising.
b) You would be shocked just how much US research institutions rely on foreigners. It seems immigrants support both ends of the economic chain: slaughterhouses and agri jobs on one end and high tech jobs at the other with natives filling in the middle. There are grants for which you need to be a citizen and they are so much easier to get simply because there are so few of them.
c) The mood is totally depressed. We had cuts this year despite CR with draconiam further cuts next year. And I'm talking about physics, not sociology of woke people. Everybody is sniffing for an exit.
Re:It's real (Score:5, Interesting)
The government is aggressively anti-education/pro-fundamentalist Christianity. It's isolationist and racist. It's economically self-destructive. It's anti-press.
To be a scientist in the US right now is to wonder if your funding will be blocked because you are researching something the government has decided is bad, wondering if you're going to be kicked out of the country (if you're not a white native-born with an English-sounding name who attends the right church regularly and never says a bad word about Trump), if you're going to get paid next year or be able to afford to live on what you do get paid, and if you'll be permitted to publish if your research gets to that point.
If you're a boffin or boffin-in-training and you're NOT trying to get out right now, you're probably not bright enough to have excelled in your field anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Put down the koolaid. The world outside the US is not the hellhole you've been told it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no the "s" word. Countries with socialized medicine and coincidentally enough longer lifespans.
Re: It's real (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: It's real (Score:2)
Re: It's real (Score:2)
US is just not attractive any more. Nobody wants to enter a country where you are looked up with suspicion.
But Trump has such a friendly warm glow about him! They won't come to the US simply for a chance to bask in the light that is your president?
Re: Warm Glow (Score:2)
But Trump has such a friendly warm glow about him!
That is called Global Warming,
Government Sponsored Research (Score:4, Interesting)
As a Libertarian, I don't suppose to support tax payer funded research. Mainly because such research leads to patents and other protections that are held not by the public for the public good, but rather commercial for profit corporations.
IMHO, the best case for solving THIS issue is tax patent holders for their patents they enforce, as a TAX. Make it steep. Stop paying the tax, the patent goes public domain. This solves a whole bunch of abuses. Make private research funded patents less taxed, and those discovery/inventions that had public funded (tax payer) at the highest rates. Tax the rich, but make it avoidable, just release to the public domain.
The protection of intellectual property ought to come at a cost.
Re: Government Sponsored Research (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a capitalist. I'm free enterprise, the free exchange of goods and services kind of guy. Subtle but distinct difference.
If one wants the protection of Patents (which I'm 100% okay with), one ought to pay for that privilege, in taxes. 100% completely voluntary with the benefits of patents expiring when nobody wants to pay the tax. Mutually beneficial Exchange being key component.
Re: (Score:2)
If one wants the protection of Patents (which I'm 100% okay with), one ought to pay for that privilege, in taxes. 100% completely voluntary with the benefits of patents expiring when nobody wants to pay the tax.
Patents are designed to make it worth to invest in research and development, by granting a law-protected exclusive use for a period of time. If you put taxes on holding a patent, the developer/manufacturer will just add that on top of the consumer price (remember, exclusivity - nobody else can manufacture it), or will just not bother with the R&D in the first place, if the consumers are not willing to pay for that.
Some patent reform is probably warranted. Maybe a patent should be valid for a shorter per
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
the best case for solving THIS issue is tax patent holders for their patents they enforce, as a TAX. Make it steep.
Isn't that what income tax already does?
Re: (Score:2)
As far as government grants go, yes, I completely agree, a simple stipulation/contract up front might handle that. I am not in that world so I don'
This is what America voted for (Score:2)
'nuff said
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Not really for many people.
They certainly didn't vote to take over canada or greenland.
They didn't vote for economic crisis.
They didn't vote for purging universities of anyone that doesn't like the Dear Leader's politics.
Trump even denied the Project 2025 thing.
I'm not saying they were smart for voting for him, they were atrociously stupid.
But the fact is they were promised greatness, and it's not what they are going to get, though it might take some time for them to finally realize it.
Re: (Score:2)
They voted. That makes them 100% complicit. Orange jesus is doing exactly what he said. He even called it a revenge tour.
Welcome to Canada! (Score:2)
We'll take all you've got! We know what makes a country stronger in the long run.
Re: (Score:3)
You can fund the research into gay frogs for a few decades... we look forward to hearing about your findings.
If you think that's what scientific research does, you're a complete idiot.
Sorry to have to break that to you.
Re: Welcome to Canada! (Score:3)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2842049/
Re: (Score:2)
While you enjoy the Canadian invention known as insulin... you know, the stuff you'll need because of your atrociously unhealthy diet as your government pulls back from food safety and public health.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, our answer to date was, "hitch our wagon to that convenient massive economy on our southern border and other than a bit of bitching now and then, don't think about it".
I am not sure that counts as "we know what makes a country stronger in the long run".
However, we appear to be smartening up faster than the global fascism trend can overtake our society, which is encouraging for the future.
The actual numbers matter (Score:3)
If last year was 10,000 leaving and this year it's 16,000, that's a major sign that the country is decaying, and I'll be packing my bags and polishing my resume, but I probably should have been doing that stuff last year.
Once a brain drain sets in, it's usually a doom loop for the country. But, US scientists will have a hell of a time finding other STEM positions. Have you seen how much we spend on R&D compared to other countries? No other country even comes close. Every unhappy liberal US scientist currently wants to go to Canada. They'll all be competing over the 15 university openings and the 25 national lab researcher positions. Their R&D budget is about 1/30th of ours, if I did the rough calculation properly. Also, if anyone thinks the US is hostile to immigrants, they'll be in for a big shock if they try to emmigrate somewhere else. Most of those "enlightened" countries are wwaaaayyyyyy more closed to immigrants than us. Even under Trump, the US is pretty open to migrants by worldwide standards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"major sign that the country is decaying"
That sign was a $36T National Debt.
It can be handled 2 ways:
1) The way we're trying to handle it, by cutting spending as much as possible without impacting our SS and MC recipients, or
2) Just let everything slide until the debt is so big we can't hope to even make the interest payments, let along the principle. Total catastrophic failure will result, the economic collapse will be total, and unlike the great depression, when a huge number of family farms made sustai
Re: The actual numbers matter (Score:2)
Re: The actual numbers matter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly makes you think that spending is cut? The spending is up year on year, not down. It simply is flowing into different pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Start by cutting the military budget 10%.
Re:The actual numbers matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Usually you need a *lot* of numbers to understand a real world situation. Both total numbers and marginal changes are part of the big picture.
Almost certainly we aren't losing a significant fraction of our scientists going by raw numbers. But changes at the margins tell you something to. I'm sure very few senior scientists who have houses and families in school are looking to go overseas, but I can tell you that young scientists I know starting their careers are looking at Europe as a better option than the US. The ones who actually go will be small in number, but it'll be the ones who can get a position anywhere in the world. If you had a choice of a postdoctoral fellowship in German and the US, and you weren't sure the US fellowship would be funded for a full five years, why would you go to the US? If funding for scientific research is drying up in the US, why would you start your career here?
Which brings me to the next point: numbers don't always tell the full story. The number of scientists leaving the US may not be very large, but when it's the top young talent it's a problem. You won't see that problem in ten years, but in twenty it will have a big effect on the scientific leadership of the US. People forget, we're just 4% of the world's population. Our overwhelming technological leadership is dependent upon keeping the best of our talent here, and attracting the best of talent from overseas.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada spends about 1/2 per capita on R&D compared to the USA. I think there will be plenty of political will to increase this... we're days away from an election and this seems like an obvious issue to seize upon. Oh look... the front-running party promises to increase R&D funding [liberal.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
BTW. the 1/2 per capita is based on percentage of GDP... that might have been unclear.
Re: (Score:3)
I work with colleagues in over 60 countries. I don't get a chance to speak with everyone every month, but I do talk to everyone at least once a quarter. And so far, every single one of them has noted that their country views the exodus of US scientists as a once-in-a-century opportunity to boost their own R&D in any/every field they possible can, and they're willing to do whatever it takes to att
Just check grants.gov (Score:2)
You will be amazed at just how many projects - many of which dubious at best - are funded.
I completely agree that we need to retain at least some of these individuals, even if just to keep them occupied and unavailable to our rivals and adversaries.
But from a purely pragmatic perspective - we really do fund a lot of useless work, and current spending is unsustainable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
we really do fund a lot of useless work,
[citation needed]
and current spending is unsustainable.
[citation needed] unless you mean typical Republican spending coupled with typical Republican tax cuts, which always increase the deficit, which they then cry about being too high when they did that.
Everything old is new again (Score:2)
in the 1930 the germans drove the scientists out
Maga/DJT is doing it here now
Define "US Scientists" (Score:2)
Otherwise this discussion is gobbledygook.
I once spent a week at a Holiday Inn Express because it was the best option for my price/location needs at the time. That doesn't make me an "HI Expressian".
Clearly the entire article and all the infographics are written to say Trump Bad. Which, I mean, does anyone doubt that? The dude is neither admirable nor articulate. He's been very successful at staying famous, a dubious honor, because so is Dahmer. But this article is clearly a preformed conclusion that went i
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about mental gymnastics.
Flee means to run from danger (Score:2)
What danger are these scientists fleeing from? Are they being shot for their science? Are they being rounded up and persecuted for their belief in science? Sensational headline is sensational.