CCHR Seeks End to Mandated Community Psychiatric Programs, Citing Global Alarm
A 2021 NIH-funded study published in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology found that 70% of youth aged 16–27 who were involuntarily hospitalized reported long-lasting distrust of clinicians—even when they remained in therapy. Meanwhile, a Cochrane Review concluded that AOT laws showed no consistent benefit over voluntary care.[2]
Many mental health consumers are also forced to accept involuntary treatment in the community by being made subject to community treatment orders (CTOs), under threat that non-compliance can result in them being detained against their will in inpatient facilities and institutions.[3]
A broader 2016 systematic review published in The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry analyzed more than 80 studies on CTOs, including three randomized controlled trials and multiple meta-analyses. The result: 'No evidence of patient benefit.' CTOs did not reduce hospitalizations or improve quality of life—but did result in patients spending significantly more time under coercive state psychiatric control.[4]
Patients are often forced onto antipsychotic drugs. Bioethicist Carl Elliott says such neuroleptics cause 'tardive dyskinesia, a writhing, twitching motion of the mouth and tongue that can be permanent.' Psychotropic drug side effects can include violent behavior, aggression, paranoia, psychosis, dangerously high body temperatures, irregular heartbeat, and heart conditions, disorientation, delusion, lack of coordination, suicidal tendencies, and numerous physical problems.[5]
Jan Eastgate, President of CCHR International says, 'Ironically, the very side effects of antipsychotic drugs—such as agitation and aggression—are the same behaviors often cited to justify forced hospitalization and involuntary treatment in the first place.'
Yet, under AOT regimes, complaints about side effects or treatment refusals are used against patients as evidence of illness. The term 'anosognosia'—defined as an inability to recognize one's illness—is routinely invoked to override consent, framing resistance as delusional and justifying further force.
As one media source put it: 'It casts resistance as malfunction… Instead of seeing dissent as meaningful or contextual, it reframes it as a symptom of a broken brain. This framing is not just misguided—it's dangerous.'[6]
Amalia Gamio, Vice Chair of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, helped open CCHR's Traveling Exhibit, Psychiatry: An Industry of Death in Los Angeles on May 17, denounced global psychiatric coercion: 'Involuntary medication, electroshock, even sterilization — these are inhuman practices. Under international law, they constitute torture. There is an urgent need to ban all coercive and non-consensual measures in psychiatric settings.'
Rev. Frederick Shaw, Jr., President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Inglewood-South Bay Branch, condemned how psychiatry disproportionately targets African Americans. 'More than 27% of Black youth—already impacted by racism—are pathologized with labels like 'Oppositional Defiant Disorder,' which has no medical test,' he said.
'This mirrors how Black civil rights leaders in the 1960s were once labeled with 'protest psychosis' to justify drugging them with antipsychotics,' he added. 'Psychiatry didn't just participate in suppressing Black voices—it orchestrated it. And they're still doing it.'
Psychiatric diagnoses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) are not discovered through scientific testing but are voted into existence by APA committees. CCHR says despite the absence of objective medical proof for these labels, they can create lifelong patients to be drugged and subjected to involuntary interventions.
Forced psychiatric practices have been condemned by the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization (WHO), which have repeatedly called for an end to forced institutionalization, electroshock, drugging, and community-based coercive measures.[7]
In the U.S., over 37% of children and youth in psychiatric facilities are subjected to seclusion or restraint.[8] Some—as young as 7—have died under these conditions. In multiple cases, medical examiners ruled the deaths homicides, yet prosecutions have been rare.[9] 'This is not mental healthcare. This is systemic cruelty and homicide,' adds Eastgate.
CCHR and its global network are demanding regulations that prohibit coercive psychiatric treatment. 'These are abuses. Forced treatment is torture passed off as mental health 'care,'' CCHR says.
About CCHR:
The group was co-founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and psychiatrist and author Prof. Thomas Szasz. CCHR has exposed and helped bring accountability for psychiatric abuses globally. Its advocacy now echoes international calls by the UN and WHO to end coercive mental health practices.
To learn more, visit: https://www.cchrint.org/2025/05/23/end-mandated-community-psychiatric-programs/
SOURCES:
[1] 'Brave New Pittsburgh: Forced Use of Psychotropic Pharmaceuticals is Coming,' Popular Rationalism, 16 May 2025, https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/brave-new-pittsburgh-forced-use-of
[2] https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/brave-new-pittsburgh-forced-use-of
[3] 'Ensuring compulsory treatment is used as a last resort: a narrative review of the knowledge about Community Treatment Orders,' Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 6 Jan 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13218719.2024.2421168#d1e194
[4] https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/brave-new-pittsburgh-forced-use-of
[5] https://www.cchrint.org/2022/04/04/cmhc-programs-can-harm-and-increase-the-homeless/; Susan Perry, 'Recruitment of homeless people for drug trials raises serious ethical issues, U bioethicist says,' MinnPost, 11 Aug. 2014, https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2014/08/recruitment-homeless-people-drug-trials-raises-serious-ethical-issues-u-bioet/; https://medium.com/matter/did-big-pharma-test-your-meds-on-homeless-people-a6d8d3fc7dfe
[6] 'Not Broken, Not Sick: A Rebellion Against the Anosognosia Frame,' Underground Transmissions, 13 May 2025 https://undergroundtransmissions.substack.com/p/not-broken-not-sick-a-rebellion-against
[7] World Health Organization, 'Guidance on mental health policy and strategic action plans,' Module 1, pp 3-4, 2025
[8] https://www.cchrint.org/2025/05/17/apa-faces-outrage-child-deaths-mental-health-failure/; Mohr, W, 'Adverse Effects Associated With Physical Restraint,' The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry—Review Paper, June 2003, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/070674370304800509
[9] Deborah Yetter, '7-year-old died at Kentucky youth treatment center due to suffocation, autopsy finds; 2 workers fired,' USA Today, 19 Sept. 2022, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/09/19/death-child-jaceon-terry-brooklawn-kentucky-youth-center/10428004002/; Taylor Johnston, ''He didn't deserve that': Remembering young people who've died from restraint and seclusion,' CT Insider, 31 Oct. 2022, https://www.ctinsider.com/projects/2022/child-deaths-school-restraint-seclusion/
MULTIMEDIA:
Image link for media: https://www.Send2Press.com/300dpi/25-0527-s2p-cchr-mandated-300dpi.jpg
Image caption: 'Involuntary medication, electroshock, even sterilization — these are inhuman practices. Under international law, they constitute torture. There is an urgent need to ban all coercive and non-consensual measures in psychiatric settings.' – Amalia Gamio, Vice Chair of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
NEWS SOURCE: Citizens Commission on Human Rights
Keywords: Religion and Churches, Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR International, CCHR International, Jan Eastgate, coercive psychiatry, LOS ANGELES, Calif.
This press release was issued on behalf of the news source (Citizens Commission on Human Rights) who is solely responsibile for its accuracy, by Send2Press® Newswire. Information is believed accurate but not guaranteed. Story ID: S2P126451 APNF0325A
To view the original version, visit: https://www.send2press.com/wire/cchr-seeks-end-to-mandated-community-psychiatric-programs-citing-global-alarm/
© 2025 Send2Press® Newswire, a press release distribution service, Calif., USA.
RIGHTS GRANTED FOR REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY LEGITIMATE MEDIA OUTLET - SUCH AS NEWSPAPER, BROADCAST OR TRADE PERIODICAL. MAY NOT BE USED ON ANY NON-MEDIA WEBSITE PROMOTING PR OR MARKETING SERVICES OR CONTENT DEVELOPMENT.
Disclaimer: This press release content was not created by nor issued by the Associated Press (AP). Content below is unrelated to this news story.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Martin Luther King III and Family: Freedom, Summer of Service, and Building the Beloved Community Together
As summer unfolds and July 4 approaches, our thoughts turn to freedom, family, and the profound power of service. Together, our family—Martin, Arndrea, and our daughter Yolanda—invite you to join us in working to fulfill Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King's vision for a Beloved Community: a society built on respect, justice, and dignity. The Beloved Community that was envisioned isn't an abstract idea—it begins in our own homes. It's reflected in how we treat one another, how we listen, and how we resolve differences with empathy and love. Home is where we first learn that love is the heartbeat of a just and moral society. It's where values are cultivated not only through words but through action. In everyday moments—small and large—we practice what we preach and begin to heal divisions. The greatest gift a family can offer isn't material wealth or recognition, but something far more lasting: the ability to love unconditionally, to serve wholeheartedly, and to work together to build a better world. Martin Luther King III, his wife Arndrea Waters King, and daughter Yolanda Renée King participate in a vigil at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial on April 4, 2022, in Washington, D.C. Martin Luther King III, his wife Arndrea Waters King, and daughter Yolanda Renée King participate in a vigil at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial on April 4, 2022, in Washington, a time when our world feels increasingly divided—by race, class, politics—family and service remain two of the strongest forces for healing. When parents and children come together with purpose, they model the power of unity and lead by example. We also recognize the urgency of the moment: —Nearly half of U.S. adults report feeling lonely, according to the office of the U.S. Surgeon General; —The National Institutes of Health (NIH) reports youth mental health is at crisis levels; —24/7 media feeds outrage but rarely offers solutions. To counter these trends, we invite you to join us this summer in the Realize the Dream (RTD) initiative—a call to action for families to serve together. Our goal of 100 million service hours by 2029 is part of a living tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 100th birthday, honoring his legacy through action and compassion. It's about transforming love into action, turning disconnection into belonging, and fostering a culture of service. Realize the Dream flips the script and replaces fear with action. It's an antidote to helplessness—transforming inward pain into outward service and scroll fatigue into real social connection. RTD rewrites the narrative: —Instead of fear, we offer hope through action; —Instead of scrolling, we inspire real-world change; —Instead of spectating, we foster belonging. Whether it's cleaning a park, volunteering at a food bank, mentoring a child, or advocating for justice, these acts of service build the bonds that hold us together. They remind us that we don't have to wait for someone else to fix our communities—we have the power to heal them ourselves. And when the passion of youth combines with the wisdom and resilience of those who have walked before, movements become unstoppable. This summer, as a family we are volunteering through the Drum Major Institute by supporting civic education workshops that equip young people with the tools to advocate for change in their own communities. We are also volunteering in rural schools in the Masai Mara of Kenya. Together, we can confront the greatest challenges of our time: climate change, racial injustice, and inequality. By building bridges across generations and taking action rooted in compassion, we can move forward together. Our living legacy isn't just about what we leave behind; it's about how we live today. It's about showing up, loving one another, and empowering the next generation to lead. Legacy becomes truly alive through our daily choices and our commitment to service. We urge every parent, every guardian, and every family to reflect on the legacy you want to create. Join the Realize the Dream initiative. Discover the transformative power of service. Because when we serve together, we don't just strengthen our communities—we strengthen the bonds that unite us as families, and as a nation. Martin Luther King III is the oldest son of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King. He is a thought leader on the world stage. With the astounding display of social injustice, violence, and confusion in recent years, perhaps at no other time in contemporary history has our world needed the clear-thinking and solutions-oriented voice of civil rights advocate and global humanitarian Martin Luther King III. Yolanda Renée King is the sole grandchild of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King—and is just as passionate. She has passionately addressed mass gatherings in protests against gun violence, homelessness, and inhumane treatment of refugees seeking asylum on the U.S. southern border. Arndrea Waters King has dedicated herself to public service as a passionate leader in the global fight against inequity, injustice, hate crimes, and all forms of pain. Throughout her life, Arndrea has consistently worked on behalf of those who have been marginalized by helping them find—and collectively use—their voices for change. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
CNN
5 hours ago
- CNN
New CIA report criticizes investigation into Russia's support for Trump in 2016
A declassified CIA memo released Wednesday challenges the work intelligence agencies did to conclude that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election because it wanted Republican Donald Trump to win. The memo was written on the orders of CIA Director John Ratcliffe, a Trump loyalist who spoke out against the Russia investigation as a member of Congress. It finds fault with a 2017 intelligence assessment that concluded the Russian government, at the direction of President Vladimir Putin, waged a covert influence campaign to help Trump win. It does not address that multiple investigations since then, including a report from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020, reached the same conclusion about Russia's influence and motives. The eight-page document is part of an ongoing effort by Trump and close allies who now lead key government agencies to revisit the history of the long-concluded Russia investigation, which resulted in criminal indictments and shadowed most of his first term but also produced unresolved grievances and contributed to the Republican president's deep-rooted suspicions of the intelligence community. The report is also the latest effort by Ratcliffe to challenge the decision-making and actions of intelligence agencies during the course of the Russia investigation. A vocal Trump supporter in Congress who aggressively questioned former special counsel Robert Mueller during his 2019 testimony on Russian election interference, Ratcliffe later used his position as director of national intelligence to declassify Russian intelligence alleging damaging information about Democrats during the 2016 election even as he acknowledged that it might not be true. The new, 'lessons-learned' review ordered by Ratcliffe in May was meant to examine the tradecraft that went into the intelligence community's 2017 assessment on Russian interference and to scrutinize in particular the conclusion that Putin 'aspired' to help Trump win. The report cited several 'anomalies' that the authors wrote could have affected that conclusion, including a rushed timeline and a reliance on unconfirmed information, such as Democratic-funded opposition research about Trump's ties to Russia compiled by a former British spy, Christopher Steele. The report takes particular aim at the inclusion of a two-page summary of the Steele dossier, which included salacious and uncorroborated rumors about Trump's ties to Russia, in an annex of the intelligence community assessment. It said that decision, championed by the FBI, 'implicitly elevated unsubstantiated claims to the status of credible supporting evidence, compromising the analytical integrity of the judgment.' But even as Ratcliffe faulted top intelligence officials for a 'politically charged environment that triggered an atypical analytic process,' his agency's report does not directly contradict any previous intelligence. Russia's support for Trump has been outlined in a number of intelligence reports and the August 2020 conclusions of the Senate Intelligence Committee, then chaired by Sen. Marco Rubio, who now serves as Trump's secretary of state. It also was backed by Mueller, who in his 2019 report said that Russia interfered on Trump's behalf and that the campaign welcomed the aid, even if there was insufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy. 'This report doesn't change any of the underlying evidence — in fact it doesn't even address any of that evidence,' said Brian Taylor, a Russia expert who directs the Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs at Syracuse University. Taylor suggested the report may have been intended to reinforce Trump's claims that investigations into his ties to Russia are part of a Democratic hoax. 'Good intelligence analysts will tell you their job is to speak truth to power,' Taylor said. 'If they tell the leader what he wants to hear, you often get flawed intelligence.' Intelligence agencies regularly perform after-action reports to learn from past operations and investigations, but it's uncommon for the evaluations to be declassified and released to the public. Ratcliffe has said he wants to release material on a number of topics of public debate and has already declassified records relating to the assassinations of President John Kennedy and his brother, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, as well as the origins of COVID-19.
Scientific American
6 hours ago
- Scientific American
U.S. Budget Cuts Are Robbing Early-Career Scientists of Their Future
As a young doctoral researcher at a university in the southern U.S., Camilo felt like he was finally closing in on his dream of becoming a leader in the next generation of HIV scholars. His recent work has helped hundreds of LGBTQ+ Latino people access HIV prevention programs and preexposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, a medication that reduces HIV infection risk. But these lifesaving efforts—and Camilo's hopes of a career focused on directly helping people in his community—came to a screeching halt one recent Friday afternoon: he opened an e-mail that said a National Institutes of Health grant, vital to his work, had been terminated. 'I saw an image of a floating pair of scissors clipping my future,' says Camilo, who asked to use a pseudonym, citing fear of retaliation. Since researchers first began receiving grant termination letters in late February, massive chunks of federal funding for science and health have been canceled on a near-weekly basis. The Trump administration has framed these cuts as a way to reduce wasteful spending, refocus research priorities and eliminate ideological bias. Grants have been flagged for containing keywords such as 'women,' 'diverse,' 'minority' and 'racially.' Camilo's research checked all the boxes for the administration's crackdown on so-called diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) research. He had been expecting the bad news, but when it came, it was still crushing. 'You're losing everything,' he says. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Grant Watch, a project tracking Trump's scientific funding cancellations, has tallied more than 2,482 terminated NIH grants worth $8.7 billion and 1,669 terminated National Science Foundation grants worth $1.5 billion as of mid-June. An NSF spokesperson declined an interview request from Scientific American but wrote in an e-mail that 'we remain committed to awarding grants and funding all areas of science and engineering.' The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to direct requests for an interview for this article. An NIH representative did not respond to a list of written questions but said the agency 'is taking action to terminate research funding that is not aligned with NIH and HHS priorities.' 'I saw an image of a floating pair of scissors clipping my future.' —Camilo, doctoral researcher On June 16 Judge William Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled against cuts to hundreds of grants for projects through the NIH, calling these cuts 'void and illegal' and indicating that funding must be reinstated. Experts expect the Trump administration will appeal the ruling, which does not apply to all of the terminated grants compiled by Grant Watch. Virtually every research sector has been disrupted in some way since Trump took office and issued a slew of executive orders affecting science and health care. Tens of thousands of federal employees at the HHS, NIH and other science- and health-related agencies have been laid off. Universities are bracing for major federal funding cuts by freezing new hiring and cutting graduate student positions. Private research companies and industries have also seen some federal support severed—including support for the development of new vaccines and cancer treatments. 'When you cut fellowships and grants, you're cutting the people that are doing the work.' —Andrew Pekosz, virologist, Johns Hopkins University Of the many thousands of researchers grappling with the fallout, one group is being disproportionately affected: early-career scientists. Senior researchers often have a diversity of funding streams, but for those starting out in the field, 'grants serve as the foundation for an entire career of work,' says Megan Ranney, dean of the Yale School of Public Health. With the cuts, 'there are some [early-career researchers] who we will undoubtedly lose from the scientific and health enterprises.' Scientific American posted on a Reddit space for scientists, researchers and lab workers to ask people how they are grappling with the professional and personal whiplash of these interruptions. More than 50 people responded with public comments; dozens more sent private messages expressing fears, frustrations and concerns. We interviewed several of them—and other junior researchers—about how the cuts are affecting their current and future work and what the long-term consequences may be for the U.S. Research Interrupted Students and postdoctoral researchers perform the vast majority of research at academic institutions, so in addition to disrupting individual lives, the cuts have thrown whole laboratories into disarray. 'When you cut fellowships and grants, you're cutting the people that are doing the work,' says Andrew Pekosz, a virologist who leads a lab at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Pekosz's lab had recently lost a COVID-related grant that was supposed to run until September. which forced him to dismiss a postdoc and a research associate because he lacked funding for their salaries. He was able to cobble together support for a Ph.D. student on the project but had to shorten the timeline for the research. Although the lab's grant is among those that Judge Young ordered the NIH to restore, much damage has already been done. 'There's just an overwhelming sense of insecurity.' —Sierra Wilson, Ph.D. student, University of Pittsburgh Labs that still have funding are also working under high pressure and low morale. 'We're constantly asking our PI [principal investigator], 'Is everything going to be okay? Are we going to be safe?'' says R.K., an undergraduate student at a lab in the Midwest that's investigating treatments for a genetic disease. (R.K. asked to be identified by his initials, citing fear that speaking out could harm his future career.) At weekly meetings, he says, the lab's principal investigator has been pushing the team to publish more papers 'in order to show our progress to donor organizations.' If the researchers' NIH funding shrinks, he says, 'we would need to persuade our other donors for more money to make up the gap.' Applied across thousands of U.S. labs, these losses—both tangible and psychological—will add up, Pekosz says. 'We're going to see a massive downsizing of biomedical research efforts because there simply is not going to be the funding available to maintain the current level,' he says. Recent data suggest this is likely to prove correct. For example, according to a 2023 JAMA Health Forum paper, of the 356 drugs that gained Food and Drug Administration approval between 2010 and 2019, more than 84 percent received research funding from the NIH before approval. This research was powered by early-career workers: billions of dollars in NIH funding supported graduate students, postdocs and research staff who conducted the work. Under the current budget cuts, however, 'all of this is at risk,' says Fred Ledley, a co-author of the 2023 paper and a professor of natural and applied sciences at Bentley University. Deeply Personal The termination letter for Calimo's grant, which is not affected by Judge Young's ruling, said that it 'no longer [effectuated] agency priorities' and that 'research programs based primarily on artificial and non-scientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives, are antithetical to the scientific inquiry, do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and ultimately do not enhance health, lengthen life or reduce illness.' Not only did these claims completely contradict the original score that NIH grant reviewers gave Camilo's application, reading the letter made him feel like he was being 'attacked,' he says. Early-career grants are both crucial stepping stones to larger grants and recognition of a rising researcher's potential. The way the Trump administration's termination letters are worded 'delegitimates the scientists and the work they do,' Ranney says. 'There's often a deeply personal aspect.' 'I just feel very let down and betrayed by my country.' —Alex, postdoc, University of Colorado Sometimes, that personal aspect is literally about the researchers themselves. Sierra Wilson, a Ph.D. student at the University of Pittsburgh, assumed her liver-regeneration research would be safe from the cuts. But because Wilson is a first-generation college student from a low-income household, her funding came from a program that aimed to increase diversity in biomedical research, and according to the NIH spokesperson, that program is now 'expired.' When Wilson read her termination letter in late April, she suspected it must be related not to her research but to her classification as an underrepresented scholar. In her case, she says, the federal cuts appear to be targeting 'people themselves—which feels more discriminatory.' The NIH spokesperson did not respond to Scientific American's question about the allegation that the termination of grants in the now expired program appeared to be based on researchers' identity or background. According to the spokesperson, 'Grantees may appeal terminations for nonalignment with agency priorities.' Wilson sent an appeal request in May, but she does not expect a timely resolution, and to her knowledge, her grant is not affected by Judge Young's decision. University personnel who helped her with the appeals process told her that they expect she will have graduated by the time the NIH gets back to her. A number of junior researchers say all these blows are taking a heavy toll on their mental health. One of them is Alex, a postdoc at the University of Colorado, whose last name has been withheld for privacy at her request. Alex, who says she comes from a low socioeconomic background and served in the military before pursuing research developing flu vaccines, reports recurring nightmares about losing her postdoctoral job. She 'spirals' each time she sees bad news about science at stake, she says, and has recently developed blood pressure issues. 'I just feel very let down and betrayed by my country,' she says. 'I feel ashamed I even served it.' The Lost Generation of Scientists Scientists who are just entering their field can spark fresh ideas and bring an appetite for change. But dwindling funding and opportunities threaten to 'choke off' this influx of new talent—further constraining the already competitive job market—Pekosz says. He has even seen signs of the scientist-hiring drought spilling over into industry. His graduating Ph.D. students are struggling to secure jobs, he says, adding that his inbox is full of e-mails from prospective students as well as laid-off federal scientists seeking positions in his lab. Wilson has fading hopes for securing a job in academia when she graduates this fall. 'With all these grant and job terminations, the market is flooded, and people aren't hiring because [they don't know] how things will work out,' Wilson says. 'There's just an overwhelming sense of insecurity.' Many scientists, including early-career ones, are contemplating leaving the U.S. to find better support for their research. R.K., who plans to pursue a dual medical degree and Ph.D., is now considering applying to programs in Asia and Europe. Alex, likewise, is strongly thinking about leaving the country. 'I would love to be a PI,' she says. 'But there's no hope left here.' If available scientific talent continues to decline in the U.S., experts anticipate a potential domino effect on the economy. In 2024 every dollar invested in NIH research generated a $2.56 return, so the U.S. economy will likely feel the aftershocks of the recent cuts relatively quickly, Ranney says. In the longer term, scientific discoveries 'will start to stagnate,' she says. 'We need to recognize that we have a tremendous amount of power.' —Tyler Yasaka, medical and Ph.D. student, University of Pittsburgh There's also a likelihood that science fields will become a less appealing choice for incoming college students. 'I worry that we're going to see a loss of basic scientific skill and knowledge as fewer people go into science,' Ranney says. If the pipeline of new talent slows, the nation's position as a global leader in science will be difficult to maintain—or to recover once it's gone, she says. It's going to be impossible to replace all the lost federal funding, Ranney says. The remaining hope, then, is that 'we can reverse course,' she says. Some scientists are uniting and pushing back. Tyler Yasaka, a dual medical and Ph.D. student at the University of Pittsburgh, is part of an informal committee at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's Hillman Cancer Center that's brainstorming actions researchers and students can take, such as advocating for science in front of elected officials at Capitol Hill. He is also independently launching a podcast to share scientists' experiences with funding. 'I think most scientists aren't comfortable speaking out publicly, but if we value democracy, we have an obligation to use our voices,' Yasaka says. 'We need to recognize that we have a tremendous amount of power.' Fortunately for Camilo, his university has found institutional funds to support the remainder of his Ph.D. But he no longer sees a clear path forward after graduation to continue his research on HIV and LGBTQ+ health among Latinos in the U.S.—public health issues that are personally important to him. 'It's sad and upsetting,' he says. 'I do not want to give up on my community.'
