The best and brightest young scientists are looking beyond the U.S. as cuts hit home
The University of Washington doctoral student had spent the past three years developing new gene-editing techniques that could spur immunity to the virus that causes AIDS. Early testing in mice showed promising results. His research group hoped it could develop into a treatment, or even a cure, for HIV.
Castelli, who is Canadian, saw two career paths after his graduation this spring: He could join a U.S. biotech company, or he could find a postdoctoral position at a U.S. university or research laboratory.
'This is where the money is at and where all the clinical trials are happening,' Castelli said, making the U.S. 'the only place in my mind I could push that forward.'
Then the Trump administration's science cuts hit.
And so, on a rainy late April day in Seattle, Castelli stood at a lectern before his friends and family and defended his doctoral thesis — about using stem cells to express antibodies against HIV — with his scientific life at a crossroads.
Should he join a lab in his native Canada? Accept recruiting calls to a European university? A Chinese biotech company? They were all possibilities now, and his U.S. visa is likely to expire in a few months' time.
'I have a personal interest in Jack getting the best opportunity for himself, and as much as I'd love to say the U.S. is the place, I can't necessarily say that right now,' said Jennifer Adair, who was Castelli's principal investigator at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center, a partner institute to the university.
Castelli speaks three languages fluently and completed two internships while earning his doctoral degree. He is a generous colleague and an exceptional scientist, Adair said.
But his uncertain future is hardly unique. The Trump administration's slowdown in science funding — which stalled thousands of grants at the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation, among other organizations — has left U.S.-based scientists and researchers scrambling to find homes for promising work that could lead to medical treatments and cures. Now many are looking abroad. As of May, Castelli had not made a decision on whether he'll stay in the U.S.
The slowdown has forced the University of Washington, a top public university for biomedical research, to implement a hiring freeze, travel restrictions, class size reductions and furloughs. Some departments are pushing students to graduate sooner than expected. In a court filing, a university representative said it funds about 3,000 researchers through NIH grants.
Interviews with more than 20 graduate students, faculty members and university administrators at UW describe a research hub thrown into chaos. Other institutions have made similarly drastic moves, according to court filings in lawsuits that aim to thwart the cuts.
Many of those interviewed said a generation of scientists — and the innovations their research would bring — could be decimated.
'Really talented people are not able to get jobs; other really talented people are able to get jobs, but they're choosing not to take them because of the craziness,' said David Baker, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington School of Medicine, who won the Nobel Prize in 2024 for protein research. 'Why would you stay in a country where there's not really an obvious commitment to science, when you could go somewhere else and be better funded and not worry about what you can read in the news or what email you're going to get?'
In an April 14 court filing, the university's vice provost for research, Mari Ostendorf, said the campus mood had dimmed.
'Faculty and staff don't know if their funding will be cut, if their research will be terminated, whether they will be able to attend conferences, or even whether they will continue to have jobs,' Ostendorf wrote. 'Funding gaps have forced researchers to abandon studies, miss deadlines, or lose key personnel.'
A spokesperson for the National Institutes of Health declined to comment.
And there may be even more funding lost in the future due to Trump administration decisions. After a protest at the University of Washington campus Monday over the war in the Gaza Strip, the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees NIH, announced that it was part of a task force reviewing UW's response to the demonstration.
About 30 people were arrested after occupying a campus building Monday, according to the university, which condemned the protest in a statement and described it as 'dangerous' and 'violent.'
The Trump administration previously canceled federal grants at Columbia University during a similar review and has said Harvard University will receive no new grants until it makes a series of reforms, including changes to policies about protests and antisemitism.
Although the review was only announced Tuesday, the administration's Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism said in a news release that 'the university must do more to deter future violence and guarantee that Jewish students have a safe and productive learning environment,' adding that it expected UW 'to follow up with enforcement actions and policy changes.'
A university science laboratory operates like a small factory where workers are churning out ideas, research and data, rather than furniture or light bulbs. Traditionally, these labs' primary customers are federal science agencies, like NIH or NSF.
Think of a lab's principal investigator as akin to a company president. In the grant process, they must convince the government or private funders to buy their product — unique research — and then pay graduate students in wages and tuition.
'I'm like a small-business owner,' said Adair, who recently left Seattle to serve as a professor and associate director at the UMass Chan Medical School's gene therapy center. 'I have to pay myself. I have to pay my staff. I have to find the money to do the research.'
In the first few months of 2025, funding for NIH grants has lagged the year prior by at least $2.3 billion, according to STAT News. NIH has also canceled grant applications as it targets politically disfavored topics like infectious diseases, according to critics.
That funding slowdown has forced many principal investigators to reduce their lab's size.
'We've had to make personnel cuts,' said Alex Greninger, a professor of laboratory medicine at UW Medicine, adding that he had been forced to rescind a job offer to a postdoctoral researcher from China who had been doing research in his lab for nearly three years.
It cost the researcher her visa, he said. Another member of his lab left to take a job at a Chinese gene synthesis firm. Several have seen placements rescinded at other institutions.
'This is the first year where people didn't get into graduate school,' Greninger said, about technicians in his lab who have completed undergraduate degrees, adding that they had done 'everything right.'
Dr. Anna Wald, the head of allergy and infectious diseases at UW Medicine, the university's school of medicine and hospital system, said several principal investigators in her department cut part of their own salaries to keep their staffers on.
Meanwhile, Adair paid out of her own pocket to send students to conferences that could advance their careers.
The uncertainty has also simply wasted time, some said.
'Everybody is spending a lot of time dealing with changes in how the university operates,' said Jakob Von Moltke, an associate professor of immunology at the University of Washington. 'Everything just functions less efficiently and there's less innovation.'
With so many professors uncertain about funding, many first-year graduate students seeking a lab are struggling to find positions. At some UW departments, first-year graduate students often rotate between labs for several months before they select a home for the following four or five years.
'A lot of people are scrambling to find a lab to settle into and a lot of faculty are unable to commit to taking students, or backing out of commitments,' said Dustin Mullaney, a first-year doctoral student studying molecular and cellular biology.
Still, many first-years consider themselves lucky — at least they got in. Most UW departments have reduced upcoming graduate classes by 25%-50%, according to court filings in a case filed by 16 state attorneys general aiming to restore the flow of NIH funding.
'I think we are going to lose most of a generation of scientists,' said Henry Mangapalli, a first-year doctoral student in the laboratory medicine department.
Meanwhile, doctoral students nearing graduation say they're being recruited to move abroad.
Kristin Weinstein, a fourth-year doctoral student in the department of immunology working on autoimmune research, planned to graduate next year, find a postdoctoral research position at a U.S. university and eventually become a professor.
But now, faced with hiring freezes and shrinking labs, Weinstein said she's considering moving her family, including an infant son, out of the U.S. Before UW's austerity actions, Weinstein booked travel to Switzerland so she could present her research at the World Immune Regulation Meeting 2025, a key conference in her field.
'What it turned into was a lot of informational interviewing,' Weinstein said. 'I talked to faculty who are in Australia, faculty who are in Germany, faculty who are in Luxembourg and Denmark. … There was active recruiting happening.'
Baker, the Nobel winner who directs the Institute for Protein Design, said that more than 15 of his graduate students and postdoctoral researchers were aiming for new roles overseas. Meanwhile, other students have seen their research upended.
Nelson Niu, a fourth-year doctoral student in mathematics, said he had planned to spend six years teaching students and completing his thesis, a timeline sanctioned by his department. But on March 11 he received an email from his department chair saying the policy had changed for fourth-year students because of new financial realities, and people like Niu were now only guaranteed five years of funding.
'Jarring,' Niu said of the notice; now he'd have to pack two years of study into one.
Arjun Kumar, a third-year doctoral student studying why T cells lose their ability to fight off tumors, was working with National Cancer Institute researchers to potentially apply some of his research findings to a type of treatment pioneered there.
But Kumar said he lost weeks of time after the NIH placed a temporary communications freeze on federal researchers this winter.
'They were already working on key experiments for us and they already had data they couldn't send us because they couldn't email us,' Kumar said.
Later, Kumar learned the NCI researchers no longer had the bandwidth to help.
'It was an exciting collaboration that was snuffed out in the moment,' Kumar said.
Washington is one of 16 states suing the NIH and HHS over its slowdown in grant funding. A judge will hear arguments Thursday as the state attorneys general seek a preliminary injunction.
Meanwhile, the pressure on scientists to leave the U.S. is only increasing. On Monday, the European Union launched a drive to attract scientists to Europe, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a commitment of $566 million to attract U.S. talent and 'make Europe a magnet for researchers.'
'It has been really challenging to my identity as an American citizen to think about having to leave the country to pursue my career,' Weinstein said. 'It feels like the American dream is dead.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Scientists slam Trump administration climate report as a ‘farce' full of misinformation
A new Trump administration report which attempts to justify a mass rollback of environmental regulations is chock-full of climate misinformation, experts say. On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a proposal to undo the 2009 'endangerment finding', which allows the agency to limit planet-heating pollution from cars and trucks, power plants and other industrial sources. Hours later, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a 150-page report defending the proposal, claiming scientific concern about the climate crisis is overblown. 'Climate change is a challenge – not a catastrophe,' wrote the energy secretary, Chris Wright, in the report's introduction. The esteemed climate scientist Michael Mann said the report was akin to the result he would expect 'if you took a chatbot and you trained it on the top 10 fossil fuel industry-funded climate denier websites'. The energy department published the report hours after the EPA announced a plan to roll back 2009's 'endangerment finding', a seminal ruling that provided the legal basis for the agency to regulate climate-heating pollution under the Clean Air Act. If finalized, the move would topple virtually all US climate regulation. In a Fox News interview, Wright claimed the report pushed back on the 'cancel culture Orwellian squelching of science'. But Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University and expert in climate misinformation, said its true purpose was to 'justify what is a scientifically unjustifiable failure to regulate fossil fuels'. 'Science is the basis for climate regulation, so now they are trying to replace legitimate science with pseudoscience,' she said. The attack on the research underpinning the endangerment finding – which says greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare – comes as part of Trump's 'drill, baby, drill' agenda to boost fossil fuels, which are the primary cause of global warming. 'This is an agenda to promote fossil fuels, not to protect public health and welfare or the environment,' said Rachel Cleetus, a director at climate and science non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists who was an author on the sixth US national climate assessment. Asked about scientists' assertions that the new report is rife with misinformation, an energy department spokesperson, Ben Dietderich, said: 'This report critically assesses many areas of ongoing scientific inquiry that are frequently assigned high levels of confidence – not by the scientists themselves but by the political bodies involved, such as the United Nations or previous presidential administrations.' But the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces what is widely considered the gold standard compendium of climate science, compiled by a huge multinational team of scientists, peer-reviewed and agreed to by every national government. The latest IPCC synthesis report, released two years ago, was a vast undertaking involving 721 volunteer scientists around the world. It states that it is 'unequivocal' that human activity has heated the planet, which has 'led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people'. By contrast, the Trump administration report was crafted by five handpicked scientists who are seen as having fringe or contrarian views by mainstream climate scientists, with no peer review. The experts behind the report have previously denied being climate deniers. The energy department did not respond to a question about the authors. 'This report had five authors and was rushed over four months, and would not pass muster in any traditional scientific peer review process,' said Zeke Hausfather, a research scientist at the climate non-profit Berkeley Earth, who called the paper a 'farce'. Wright, the energy secretary, insisted he had not steered the report's conclusions, while Judith Curry, one of the report authors, said in a blogpost she hoped the document would push climate science 'away from alarmism and advocacy'. Mainstream climate scientists, however, condemned the findings as distorted and inaccurate. 'This is a report written by a couple of scientists who are outliers in their arguments for climate change,' said Natalie Mahowald, a climate scientist at Cornell University. 'This document does in no way depreciate the value of previous assessments, but rather just cherrypicks the literature to pretend to create a new review.' Mahowald said the lack of peer review meant it was 'obviously not as robust' as the IPCC report or the US government's periodic national climate assessment, which the Trump administration recently took offline. The latest national climate assessment, compiled by a dozen government agencies and outside scientists in 2023, concluded that the 'effects of human-caused climate change are already far-reaching and worsening across every region of the United States' 'If almost any other group of scientists had been chosen, the report would have been dramatically different,' Andrew Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M University, said of the new report. 'The only way to get this report was to pick these authors.' Hausfather agreed that the authors' work 'might represent their views but is not consistent with the broader scientific literature on climate change'. He was among the scientists whose work the authors cited. The new paper includes a chart from a 2019 report which he led, claiming it demonstrates how climate models 'consistently overestimated observations' of atmospheric carbon. But Hausfather's research actually showed that climate models have performed well. 'They appear to have discarded the whole paper as not fitting their narrative, and instead picked a single figure that was in the supplementary materials to cast doubt on models when the whole paper actually confirmed how well they have performed in the years after they were published,' he said. The energy department did not respond to a request for comment about Hausfather's concerns. That approach to research seems to underpin the entire paper, said Hausfather, who is also the climate research lead at tech company Stripe. 'This is a general theme in the report; they cherrypick data points that suit their narrative and exclude the vast majority of the scientific literature that does not,' he said. Dessler said scientists are obliged to engage with the full range of evidence, even if it contradicts their initial assumptions. Ignoring this principle 'can rise to the level of scientific misconduct', he said. 'The report they produced should be thought of as a law brief from attorneys defending their client, carbon dioxide,' Dessler said. 'Their goal is not to weigh the evidence fairly but to build the strongest possible case for CO2's innocence.' The lack of peer review in the administration's report led to conclusions that deviated, sometimes wildly, from the scientific literature. Many of its claims are based on long-debunked research long promoted by climate deniers, said Mann. 'It is shop worn, decades-old, discredited climate denier talking points, dressed up in the clothing of some sensible new set of revelations,' he said. 'What's different is that it has the imprimatur of the EPA and the federal government now.' The report, for instance claims that warming trends have been overstated, despite evidence to the contrary. It was published as extreme heat is affecting millions of Americans. 'They're literally trying to tell us not to believe what we see with our own two eyes … and instead buy into their denialist framing that rejects not just the science, but what is plainly evident if you look out your window,' said Mann. The authors also write that ocean acidification is occurring 'within the range of natural variability' and is beneficial for marine life despite the ocean's acidic levels currently being the highest since 14m years ago, a time when a major extinction event was occurring. And the report references the apparent health of Australia's Great Barrier Reef, which it says 'has shown considerable growth in recent years'. The reef was recently hit by its sixth mass bleaching event since 2016, a devastating phenomenon for corals in which they whiten and sometimes die due to high sea temperatures. No widespread bleaching events were recorded on the reef before 1998. The report is 'tedious' and at times 'truly wearisome', according to Bob Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University. Kopp recently worked on a paper showing how rising temperatures and drought will worsen crop yields, counter to the report's claims that crops will flourish with extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 'Carbon dioxide fertilization is largely irrelevant to how increasingly extreme heat and intense drought will impact crop yields,' Kopp said. 'As a former department of energy fellow, I'm embarrassed by this report.'
Metro
5 hours ago
- Metro
Scientists pinpoint when humans start ‘ageing'
There comes a certain time where we start groaning trying to get ourselves off of a chair. We complain that our bodies are getting old, and we just don't have the energy that we used to. Well, researchers now say they have pinpointed exactly when we start ageing... (Picture: Getty) The new research says that we begin seriously ageing as young as 30. This is the age where our bodies begin to break down. At this time, the adrenal gland, which sits in the top of the kidneys and releases hormones vital for regulating bodily functions, begins to show changes in protein levels. The researchers found an increase in 48 disease-related proteins as tissue samples trended older. But this isn't the age when we seriously begin ageing – that's at 50 (Picture: Getty) Publishing their study in the journal Cell, researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences collected tissue samples across the body's major organ systems from 76 individuals of Chinese ancestry. The samples came from those who had died from accidental brain injury and were aged between 14 to 68 (Picture: Getty) The experts discovered that certain tissues, such as blood vessels, experience ageing faster than others. The scientists also identified the proteins responsible for this accelerated process. Large changes in protein levels were spotted around the ages of 45 and 55, and one of the biggest shifts was in the aorta. Scientists suspect that blood vessels carry these age-accelerating molecules throughout the body (Picture: Getty) The authors wrote: 'Based on aging-associated protein changes, we developed tissue-specific proteomic age clocks and characterised organ-level aging trajectories. Temporal analysis revealed an aging inflection around age 50, with blood vessels being a tissue that ages early and is markedly susceptible to ageing' (Picture: Getty) This study's conclusion fits in nicely with a previous study from Stanford University which showed that humans largely experience a period of accelerated ageing at around 44 and the early 60s. Stanford University's Michael Snyder, a professor of genetics, and lead author of the study, said about the current study: 'It fits the idea that your hormonal and metabolic control are a big deal. That is where some of the most profound shifts occur as people age. We're like a car. Some parts wear out faster' (Picture: Getty) Understanding how humans age will help doctors to find ways to help us live healthy, longer lives, and to learn more about how the body experiences ageing throughout our lifetime. 'These insights may facilitate the development of targeted interventions for ageing and age-related diseases, paving the way to improve the health of older adults,' said the study authors (Picture: Getty) Your free newsletter guide to the best London has on offer, from drinks deals to restaurant reviews.
The Guardian
8 hours ago
- The Guardian
Trump officials plan coverage for weight loss drugs under Medicare and Medicaid
The Trump administration is planning a pilot program to cover 'miracle' weight loss drugs under the government health insurance systems for low-income people and retirees, Medicaid and Medicare, in a move aimed at tackling the US's chronic obesity problem. Such a plan was previously proposed by the Biden administration in its final months before Donald Trump re-entered the White House after winning a second term in office in the 2024 election. Now the Trump administration intends a five-year experiment in which the Medicaid program and Medicare drug coverage plans will have the option of covering the cost of drugs selling under the names Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro and Zepbound for 'weight management' purposes, the Washington Post reported on Friday morning, citing documents from the government's Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). This type of medication, known as GLP-1 drugs and originally developed to treat type 2 diabetes, have gained popularity for their ability to reduce body weight by suppressing appetite and slowing digestion. But their high cost, typically between $5,000 and $7,000 a year, has raised concerns about long-term affordability and such a plan now under consideration by Donald Trump would come at a hefty cost to the public purse. Insurance coverage for such drugs is currently typically approved when patients have other conditions that are often tied to obesity, such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer. The new proposed plan would permit state Medicaid programs and Medicare Part D insurance plans to voluntarily cover GLP-1 drugs, including those from the market leaders Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, the report said. Lilly and Novo are leaders in the weight-loss drug market, which some analysts expect could bring in more than $150bn in revenue by the next decade. Lilly's shares were up nearly 2% in premarket trading on Friday. The initiative is slated to begin in April 2026 for Medicaid and January 2027 for Medicare. If it clears the way, it would mark a shift in federal policy after the administration said earlier this year that the programs would not cover weight loss drugs. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Lilly and Novo did not respond to Reuters' request for comment. The plan could expose division between CMS head Mehmet Oz, who has previously praised such drugs, and health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, who has criticized their high cost and how they are not a substitute for a healthy lifestyle.
