US Scientists Flee Abroad as Research Funding Cuts Deepen: Nature (nature.com) 199
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:3)
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:2)
Sure but what if we don't end up cutting the debt (it is expected to rise, potentially at a faster rate than 20-24), the deficit still rises this year (which it's on track to) and we still cut all that research, would that change your opinion?
Re:Make it stop!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahh so if the admin says "X will accomplish Y" but instead the opposite happens, you just say "Do more X" and hope it works? Is there no point where you consider they might be wrong about the effect of X on Y?
Re: Make it stop!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not disagreeing with you; I think I agree with your basis idea that businesses shouldn't get a R&D free ride at taxpayer expense, but your comments raise some questions.
If the business risk to researching and developing some new drug or technology is very high with the chance of success and profit very low, do you think a business will take on that risk? That's why the government which, for better off for worse, has no target profit in mind takes on high-risk research that may eventually yield success and benefit the public. GPS is an example of this. Do you think that any commercial entity would have had the resources to develop this technology?
Second question, feeding off the first: If a new technology/drug/etc is developed by the government, who else is going to commercialize it for the benefit of the public?
Re:Make it stop!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientists are great, but the research that was government funded ends up enriching corporations and not the public anyways.
Now it will enrich foreign corporations, who can charge the American public more to make up for the tariffs.
Re:Make it stop!! (Score:5, Informative)
Scientists are great, but the research that was government funded ends up enriching corporations and not the public anyways.
That's simply not true, in two ways.
First of all, research that enriches corporations also enriches the public. The public buys the products that are the fruit of the research because those products fulfill their needs better than whatever they were using before. If the public didn't get increased value out of the new products, they wouldn't buy them! Also, it's strange to distinguish in this way between "corporations" and "the public", because corporations are comprised of "the public".
Second -- and perhaps more importantly -- research comes in very different kinds. A particularly important distinction is "basic research" vs "applied research". Basic research is done mostly by scientists, and serves to expand the frontiers of human knowledge, which potentially enables lots of new products, but doesn't directly create any of them. Applied research is done mostly by engineers, and serves to take the new knowledge produced by basic research and turn it into products that the public can benefit from.
Both of these are necessary. The public doesn't get new products without applied research, and applied researchers have nothing to work with without basic research.
Companies are really bad at basic research, because the path from potential basic discoveries to products is very long, and very risky. So without government funding for basic research, a lot less of it will get done, which leads to a lot less new knowledge on which to base applied research, which leads to a lot fewer new products, curtailing the enrichment of both companies and the public.
But it's a little worse than that, too. Because the applied researchers follow the basic researchers. Or perhaps more often, basic researchers who discover potentially useful new knowledge either become entrepreneurs and applied researchers, or feed entrepreneurs and applied researchers near them. So new products end up springing up in the geographic locations where the basic research is done. This is part of the reason you find tech companies clustered around prominent research universities (the other part is that tech companies need technical employees, which the universities also produce).
Reducing funding for scientific research is going to make all Americans poorer. It's not like the tariff insanity, which has immediate effects. The cuts in funding and ensuing loss of talent will take a decade or two to become obvious. But it will.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but this is just completely opposite to the truth. Believe me, I'm speaking from first hand experience. Taken as a group, academic researchers are some of the most altruistic people you're ever likely to meet. They publish their work freely to make it available to the whole world. Sure some things get patented, but only a tiny fraction. They also produce an enormous amount of open source software, again freely giving it away to the whole world.
You probably think that being cynical makes you real
Re: Make it stop!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:It's real (Score:5, Insightful)
Put down the koolaid. The world outside the US is not the hellhole you've been told it is.
Re:It's real (Score:5, Informative)
Oh no the "s" word. Countries with socialized medicine and coincidentally enough longer lifespans.
Re: It's real (Score:3)
Nobody smart enough to go to Europe think your strawmen are of any value, and anyone who does think there is a point to them aren't smart enough to go to Europe, so thanks for providing a filter :)
Seriously. IQ does not exist? Yeah it does, just like gender and other social constructs. But we don't all use it to draw unwarranted conclusions based on shoddy science.
As for the rest of your delusions, having an independent press funded by tax money seems a lot better than having only press left that is mostly
Re: It's real (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: It's real (Score:2)
Re: (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:3)
But Trump has such a friendly warm glow about him!
That is called Global Warming,
Re: (Score:2)
But Trump has such a friendly warm glow about him!
That's just the Cheeto dust he applies liberally every day.
So that's kind of a sore spot (Score:2)
The universities like the foreign students because they pay a lot more.
Companies like the foreign students because They don't come out of college with citizenship so they can be bullied to work longer hours.
Where the whole thing gets skeezy is how the college is get paid. It's loans from the federal government but if the students get out of college and th
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: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.
Re:Welcome to Canada! (Score:5, Informative)
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:5, Interesting)
The herbicide atrazine is one of the most commonly applied pesticides in the world. As a result, atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide contaminant of ground, surface, and drinking water. Atrazine is also a potent endocrine disruptor that is active at low, ecologically relevant concentrations. Previous studies showed that atrazine adversely affects amphibian larval development. The present study demonstrates the reproductive consequences of atrazine exposure in adult amphibians.
So you think the ecological effects of the most commonly applied pesticide are not worth studying? That's too "woke?"
Do we have a legal definition of "woke" that we can apply to research yet? Did we pass a law?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually valid, non woke, science of course
For anyone too lazy to search for the article:
"The herbicide atrazine is one of the most commonly applied pesticides in the world. As a result, atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide contaminant of ground, surface, and drinking water. Atrazine is also a potent endocrine disruptor that is active at low, ecologically relevant concentrations. Previous studies showed that atrazine adversely affects amphibian larval development. The present study demonstrates the reproductive consequences of atrazine
Re: (Score:3)
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.
The actual numbers matter (Score:4, Interesting)
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:The actual numbers matter (Score:5, 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:3)
Our overwhelming technological leadership is dependent upon keeping the best of our talent here, and attracting the best of talent from overseas.
And it's almost entirely the latter. Since WWII (at least) we've been incredibly successful at brain draining the whole world, skimming most of the cream of that 96% and attracting them here with our open society that encourages free expression, our wealth and resulting good lifestyles, and our first class research facilities and organizations. All of these things have formed a powerful virtuous cycle, and that is what has kept us on top, technologically. Our own native population has contributed, but thos
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:The actual numbers matter (Score:5, Interesting)
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 attract those people. Three of those countries are seriously discussing starting entirely new universities -- from nothing -- and staffing them with ex-US scientists. (Whether they can or will do that remains to be seen, of course, but the fact it's even on the table for discussion is a reflection of how badly they want these people.) This includes countries that aren't particularly known for strong university/research institutions, because this is their chance to jumpstart that ecosystem.
Five of those countries have put together employment/housing/etc. packages that are really quite nice. Over twenty of those countries have sent recruiters to the US to talk to scientists in person. And so on. And this has all happened in a matter of just a few weeks.
All of this will take time -- which means that it'll take time to see the real effects of the anti-science/education/research/etc. policies of the US. But the fact that it's happening at all should set off every possible alarm bell, because once these people are gone -- in a few years -- it will take decades to replace them.
Re: The actual numbers matter (Score:2)
Re: The actual numbers matter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Start by cutting the military budget 10%.
Its being explored, but it'd only be $80B or so, compared to the several trillion of SS and MC, and we're not cutting benefits for either of those. Might find some WF&A, but even of congress can cut $ to them, then benefits will remain the same, we just won't be funding the WF&A.
Re: (Score:3)
What we should really start by doing is defunding the military by the amount by which they fail their audits. Simply do not give them any amount they cannot account for. Every year they can't explain some money, take it away.
Everything old is new again (Score:3)
in the 1930 the germans drove the scientists out
Maga/DJT is doing it here now
Define "US Scientists" (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about mental gymnastics.
I know right? /. story and TFA are at Cirque du Soleil levels of acrobatics in order to manufacture the impression that American scientists are hitting the Underground Railroad to desperately escape from the country, and thus skies shall fall!
This
It makes no journalistic, reasoned effort whatsoever to examine whether the previous levels of funding and subsidy were healthy, sustainable, or even well-understood and desired by voters. It merely takes everything before 1/20/2025 as Normal Good Times and then, h
Re: Define "US Scientists" (Score:2)
So scientists that fled their native country to get an education and career in America are considering returning to their native country or a Bigger Better Deal elsewhere? Wow. That's big news!
Were they US Scientists, or were they scientists that were recently working in the U.S.?
Percentages only... (Score:2)
The only quantifiable numbers I saw in the article were the total number of open positions hosted on their board. Which sound dramatic but it doesn
number? (Score:2)
I'm not seeing a number for how many have actually left. I did read about one guy, who was born in England to American parents and brought up mainly in England, iirc, but then got a job eventually at some American U. Does he count?
When I was thinking about getting a job at a European U. or research inst., it turns out it was not easy to get a visa for that.
No worries (Score:2)
As long as the US doesn't have to pay, well OK (Score:2)
As we've learned after watching so many international organizations come to a complete halt after USAID's funding was withdrawn, the US spends a *lot* of money on "research", and a lot of that finds its way into the EU, Canada, Japan, South Korea, and Australia.
So the French and the Germans are launching multi-million dollar initiatives to "sponsor" researchers. I'm fine with that, as long as those millions are from yet another US government cut-out.
Frankly, we're spending way too much here. We absolutely n
Re: (Score:2)
"are *not* from another US government cut-out".
When, oh when is slashdot going to give us a damn EDIT feature?
Please define "Flee" (Score:2)
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%.
Specifically:
Applications from American researchers for international positions surged 32%
"Applications" doesn't mean anyone "fled" the U.S.
US-based users browsing overseas jobs jumped 35%
"Browsing" is a form of window shopping, it doesn't mean anyone "fled" the country.
These metrics prove "curiosity" about overseas opportunities, nothing more...
Accomplished scientists likely have pensions, retirement plans, generous vacation and other benefits, and to simply walk away from all that is a big decision - being curious about "what's out there" doesn't mean they have quit their jobs and left for opportunities overseas...
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)
Epidemiological factors related to human monkeypox virus (MPOX) in men who have sex with me
Blimey, that's one hell of a study! (obviously, it's been truncated)
Re: (Score:2)
That "flagged_words" column seems to be quite misleading, if a study "Development of a handheld rapid air sensing system to monitor and quantify SARS-CoV-2 in aerosols in real-time" has "trans" as the only entry in "flagged_words". Columns "project_title" seems to be a better indicator or what was done.
Re:"researcher" (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can't see all the disease and vaccine studies because you're too deluded by your idiot ideology that's on you. Nor should anyone care about the fact that you seem to think knowing things about sexual minorities is some how bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"researcher" (Score:5, Interesting)
Cancer [cbsnews.com] research [statnews.com] for one [msnbc.com].
Research on dementia was originally cut, but restored when he realized he would need that research.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, asshole:all of it at the NIH. And NASA.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true, another false meme.
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:"researcher" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he is making a "joke" that he doesn't mean as a joke, that implies that the *only* science that's publicly funded is, to use your phrase, "strictly ideologically aligned research with which he does not agree". And you're busy euphemising what he's doing.
Re: Government Sponsored Research (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Some patent reform is probably warranted. Maybe a patent should be valid for a shorter period, or maybe it should not be possible to "extend" patents through various tricks.
Yup, the un-sexy (but usually correct) answer is boring regulatory, bureaucratic and legal tweaks to the system. Evaluate what you want the outcomes of your patent system to be, look at the issues the system currently has and adjust, wait and see how the adjustments work and then take the next step if necessary.
Re: (Score:3)
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
It seems to me like the GP's plan was to prevent patent squatting. I don't think it was a complete thought, though. There are too many details undescribed.
Patents should probably be for shorter periods, but as you suggest, they definitely should not be able to effectively extend them. However, fixing that is going to require (using the proximate example of pharmaceutical patents) prohibiting pharmaceutical advertising. Once the drug becomes generically available, the pharmaco advertises a replacement and de
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Government Sponsored Research (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you buy a table, you are paying for the wholesale cost for the wood, and primarily, the carpenters skilled labor. A carpenter can coexist with someone copying their table design as long as the market for new tables can support 2 carpenters.
A new drug is not at all the same thing. The marginal cost of creating a pill is basically nothing compared to the cost of developing it. A copy cat drug maker will put the ones who developed the drug out of business because the copy cat can sell it for pennies on
Re: (Score:3)
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: Government Sponsored Research (Score:2)
Isn't that what income tax already does?
Or a property tax. But taxing IP as property at the national level presents a few problems. One being the concept of a national property tax. Another would be limiting the ability to sit on patents to only the wealthy. The likes of Microsoft would never have to worry about a garage startup again (not that they haven 't gamed the system enough already).
Re: (Score:2)
Wealth taxes are unpopular unless it's on property... then somehow we are all ok paying rent for our homes or get evicted by the government... your homestead should be exempt. Why religion gets a free pass is beyond me... they own so much more than the land their building is on; it's a tax scam.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone mentioned the real problems with property tax so time for the obligatory plug of the "perfect tax" as it's referred to, the Land Value Tax [wikipedia.org]
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'
Re:Government Sponsored Research (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, saying you are Libertarian (in the already Libertarian USA. it's like 60% towards economic anarchy, aka libertarianism) is almost as bad as saying your a Trump supporter. Not the same but just as foolish. You should think about that some more.
We are in dire need of dull science to test everything; it's not useful for industry and academics don't get published or grants as it does nothing unless it actually disproves existing science which can cause other issues. We need government to fund what needs to be done that nobody has any incentive to do.
We also need infrastructure which is socialized like healthcare because no other model works better. The #1 cost for a GM car is healthcare; for decades. You can't compete against even Canada for car parts. Also, they have cheaper cleaner energy. You can find cheap labor in a 3rd world shithole but then you have to pay for private police, fire, roads, electricity, water, education, laws(bribes) etc. There are places without basic infrastructure out there that are only cheap for labor and resources; which can work while cutting corners on everything lacking (until you get bad PR when horrible things happen.)
The USA is sliding into the crapper; it may be gold plated but it's still a crapper.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
If you are a student at a decent university, and your research leads to patentable matter, the patent belongs to the university, and that university gives you a small part of the profits this patent generates. Most patents generate none at all, so it's a lottery. The rest of the profits gets back into the research system. It's exactly these researchers, which DT47 is chasing out of the country right now.
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.
That tax you quote are the patent fees. The initial patent is only granted for a few years, and in order
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is what America voted for (Score:4, Insightful)
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, Interesting)
Not really for many people.
They either voted or enabled him, or else didn't do enough to keep him out.
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.
There was plenty of warning from everyone else about what a vote for Trump would bring about.
Trump even denied the Project 2025 thing.
And Amerikkka was stupid enough to believe him
I'm not saying they were smart for voting for him, they were atrociously stupid.
1000%
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.
And again: they were stupid enough to believe him over the clear warnings/history everyone was YELLING OUT LOUD ABOUT for years.
Amerikkka did vote for this.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump won 77,284,118 votes, or 49.8 percent of the votes cast for president. Kamala Harris won 74,999,166 votes or 48.3 percent of the votes cast. 1.9% Did something else or were apathetic.
A full half of us did not believe the bullshit and are appalled at the current situation. Just wait, as long as we can still vote this madness will end. Hopefully what is left is recoverable.
So over a half of you are letting the other (smaller) half take over and ruin everything for everyone, including the whole world.
And all you're doing about it is posting your discontent about it here. And in the meantime, your 'just wait[ing]' on someone or something to come and rescue you from it all?
Well done.
Re:This is what America voted for (Score:5, Insightful)
To the outside world, Trumpism looks like a cult.
Looks like?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever that means. Be clear, what are you suggesting?
Re:This is what America voted for (Score:5, Informative)
They voted. That makes them 100% complicit. Orange jesus is doing exactly what he said. He even called it a revenge tour.
Re: (Score:3)
He even called it a revenge tour.
Yup: "I am your retribution!" - direct quote.
Re:This is what America voted for (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what America voted for
Not really for many people.
When people vote for and elect an incompetent narcissist with delusions of despotic authoritarianism, they don't get to be surprised by anything on your list. You might argue that you didn't expect those things, but if you put a stupid person who intentionally surrounds themselves with other stupid people into power, any expectations you had are invalidated. Unless you expected "stupid things", in which case I guess you got exactly what you were looking for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just check grants.gov (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's $2.7 million that doesn't need to be spent by government.
https://grants.gov/search-resu... [grants.gov]
Are you truly that idiotic to need a citation supporting that deficit spending in the trillions annually is unsustainable? Maybe this will help you: https://www.khanacademy.org/ma... [khanacademy.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Here's $2.7 million that doesn't need to be spent by government.
On what basis?
Are you truly that idiotic to need a citation supporting that deficit spending in the trillions annually is unsustainable?
So what you're saying is that we should never elect another Republican again, because they always increase the deficit? I agree.
Re:Flee means to run from danger (Score:4, Informative)
They are fleeing from incipient fascism. Do you not pay attention?
Re:Flee means to run from danger (Score:5, Insightful)
JOBS! (and job security) Do you think industry does much science?? LOL. You are naive.
The brain drain is finally coming to an end... or flowing outward to multiple nations instead of primarily to one.
Academic freedom and research freedom is being replaced with freedumb - this is a man who changes the weather with a sharpie and then wants to fire everybody who points it out. Next time the chart will be altered at the source. That has begun already; nobody wants to be in a place where the whims of a madman can change your hard work and then demand you lie about it too.
The Fascism is totally real but that is another issue and Fascism is a franchise, each version actually must be customized due to it's fundamental principle of being highly nationalistic. Being shot etc isn't required.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Flee means to run from danger (Score:4, Insightful)
They are fleeing the future of the United States. Not being stupid, they're not waiting around for the more or less inevitable future where they are rounded up and prosecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists are being threatened with deportation to countries that will execute them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/0... [nytimes.com]
Re:Flee means to run from danger (Score:4, Informative)
Well, if they aren't US-born citizens, the fact that foreign nationals are being rounded up and sent to El Salvador to a death gulag might be one reason.