logo
Scientists have lost their jobs or grants in US cuts. Foreign universities want to hire them

Scientists have lost their jobs or grants in US cuts. Foreign universities want to hire them

Yahoo25-05-2025
As the Trump administration cut billions of dollars in federal funding to scientific research, thousands of scientists in the U.S. lost their jobs or grants — and governments and universities around the world spotted an opportunity.
The 'Canada Leads' program, launched in April, hopes to foster the next generation of innovators by bringing early-career biomedical researchers north of the border.
Aix-Marseille University in France started the 'Safe Place for Science' program in March — pledging to 'welcome' U.S.-based scientists who 'may feel threatened or hindered in their research.'
Australia's 'Global Talent Attraction Program,' announced in April, promises competitive salaries and relocation packages.
'In response to what is happening in the U.S.,' said Anna-Maria Arabia, head of the Australian Academy of Sciences, 'we see an unparalleled opportunity to attract some of the smartest minds here.'
Since World War II, the U.S. has invested huge amounts of money in scientific research conducted at independent universities and federal agencies. That funding helped the U.S. to become the world's leading scientific power — and has led to the invention of cell phones and the internet as well as new ways to treat cancer, heart disease and strokes, noted Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of the journal Science.
But today that system is being shaken.
Since President Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has pointed to what it calls waste and inefficiency in federal science spending and made major cuts to staff levels and grant funding at the National Science Foundation,the National Institutes of Health, NASA and other agencies, as well as slashing research dollars that flow to some private universities.
The White House budget proposal for next year calls to cut the NIH budget by roughly 40% and the National Science Foundation's by 55%.
'The Trump administration is spending its first few months reviewing the previous administration's projects, identifying waste, and realigning our research spending to match the American people's priorities and continue our innovative dominance," said White House spokesperson Kush Desai.
Already, several universities have announced hiring freezes, laid off staff or stopped admitting new graduate students. On Thursday, the Trump administration revoked Harvard University's ability to enroll international students, though a judge put that on hold.
Research institutions abroad are watching with concern for collaborations that depend on colleagues in the U.S. — but they also see opportunities to potentially poach talent.
'There are threats to science ... south of the border,' said Brad Wouters, of University Health Network, Canada's leading hospital and medical research center, which launched the 'Canada Leads' recruitment drive. 'There's a whole pool of talent, a whole cohort that is being affected by this moment.'
Promising a safe place to do science
Universities worldwide are always trying to recruit from one another, just as tech companies and businesses in other fields do. What's unusual about the current moment is that many global recruiters are targeting researchers by promising something that seems newly threatened: academic freedom.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said this month that the European Union intends 'to enshrine freedom of scientific research into law.' She spoke at the launch of the bloc's 'Choose Europe for Science' — which was in the works before the Trump administration cuts but has sought to capitalize on the moment.
Eric Berton, president of Aix-Marseille University, expressed a similar sentiment after launching the institution's 'Safe Place for Science' program.
'Our American research colleagues are not particularly interested by money," he said of applicants. "What they want above all is to be able to continue their research and that their academic freedom be preserved."
Too early to say 'brain drain'
It's too early to say how many scientists will choose to leave the U.S. It will take months for universities to review applications and dole out funding, and longer for researchers to uproot their lives.
Plus, the American lead in funding research and development is enormous — and even significant cuts may leave crucial programs standing. The U.S. has been the world's leading funder of R&D — including government, university and private investment — for decades. In 2023, the country funded 29% of the world's R&D, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
But some institutions abroad are reporting significant early interest from researchers in the U.S. Nearly half of the applications to 'Safe Place for Science' — 139 out of 300 total — came from U.S.-based scientists, including AI researchers and astrophysicists.
U.S.-based applicants in this year's recruitment round for France's Institute of Genetics, Molecular and Cellular Biology roughly doubled over last year.
At the Max Planck Society in Germany, the Lise Meitner Excellence Program — aimed at young female researchers — drew triple the number of applications from U.S.-based scientists this year as last year.
Recruiters who work with companies and nonprofits say they see a similar trend.
Natalie Derry, a U.K.-based managing partner of the Global Emerging Sciences Practice at recruiter WittKieffer, said her team has seen a 25% to 35% increase in applicants from the U.S. cold-calling about open positions. When they reach out to scientists currently based in the U.S., 'we are getting a much higher hit rate of people showing interest.'
Still, there are practical hurdles to overcome for would-be continent-hoppers, she said. That can include language hurdles, arranging childcare or eldercare, and significant differences in national pension or retirement programs.
Community ties
Brandon Coventry never thought he would consider a scientific career outside the United States. But federal funding cuts and questions over whether new grants will materialize have left him unsure. While reluctant to leave his family and friends, he's applied to faculty positions in Canada and France.
'I've never wanted to necessarily leave the United States, but this is a serious contender for me,' said Coventry, who is a postdoctoral fellow studying neural implants at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
But it's not easy to pick up and move a scientific career — let alone a life.
Marianna Zhang was studying how children develop race and gender stereotypes as a postdoctoral fellow at New York University when her National Science Foundation grant was canceled. She said it felt like 'America as a country was no longer interested in studying questions like mine.'
Still, she wasn't sure of her next move. 'It's no easy solution, just fleeing and escaping to another country,' she said.
The recruitment programs range in ambition, from those trying to attract a dozen researchers to a single university to the continent-wide 'Choose Europe' initiative.
But it's unclear if the total amount of funding and new positions offered could match what's being shed in the U.S.
A global vacuum
Even as universities and institutes think about recruiting talent from the U.S., there's more apprehension than glee at the funding cuts.
'Science is a global endeavor,' said Patrick Cramer, head of the Max Planck Society, noting that datasets and discoveries are often shared among international collaborators.
One aim of recruitment drives is to 'to help prevent the loss of talent to the global scientific community,' he said.
Researchers worldwide will suffer if collaborations are shut down and databases taken offline, scientists say.
'The U.S. was always an example, in both science and education,' said Patrick Schultz, president of France's Institute of Genetics, Molecular and Cellular Biology. So the cuts and policies were 'very frightening also for us because it was an example for the whole world.'
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

TACO not on the menu: Howard Lutnick says tariffs start August 1 with no extensions
TACO not on the menu: Howard Lutnick says tariffs start August 1 with no extensions

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

TACO not on the menu: Howard Lutnick says tariffs start August 1 with no extensions

Tariffs are coming on August 1 and there will be no more extensions, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said. President Donald Trump imposed his 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April, causing a rollercoaster stock market. A week later, he announced a 90-day pause, which has now expired, with many set to take effect Friday. Although the world may have gotten used to Trump announcing sweeping levies before backing out of them shortly thereafter, this time, there's no risk of TACO — the shorthand for "Trump Always Chickens Out" — the commerce secretary suggested. "No extensions. No more grace periods. August 1, the tariffs are set. They'll go into place," Lutnick said on "Fox News Sunday.' World leaders are still more than willing to talk to Trump after the August 1 deadline. 'Between now and then, I think the president's going to talk to a lot of people. Whether they can make him happy is another question, but the president is definitely willing to negotiate and talk to the big economies,' Lutnick continued. Lutnick's announcement of the hard deadline contrasts with the message of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent days earlier, when he suggested the tariff deadlines were flexible. 'The important thing here is the quality of the deal, not the timing of the deals,' Bessent told CNBC on Monday. The hard deadline comes months after the president earned the TACO acronym after he backed out of his sweeping tariff plan. On April 2, which he's dubbed Liberation Day, Trump declared the day would 'forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America's destiny was reclaimed, and the day that we began to make America wealthy again.' Stock market turbulence ensued. The NASDAQ broke a record with its largest single-day point drop in the market's 50-year history as investors responded to Trump's tariff plan. Just one week after Liberation Day, he walked back on his grand plan and the stock market surged. That's when the acronym TACO emerged. Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong coined the term to describe the president's pattern of implementing trade policy threats, which investors predicted would cause the market to tumble, before he walks back on that policy, leading to a market rebound. Last month, he delayed the July 9 tariff deadline to August 1. Trump is meeting with European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday to try to avoid a potential trade war. "We're working very diligently with Europe, the EU," Trump told reporters before he left for Scotland on Friday. "I would say that we have a 50-50 chance, maybe less than that, but a 50-50 chance of making a deal with the EU." Lutnick also commented on Sunday's meeting. Speaking on 'Fox News Sunday,' he remarked: 'The question is, do they offer President Trump a good enough deal that is worth it for him to step off of the 30% tariffs that he set.' Trump has announced trade deals with several countries, including Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and the United Kingdom. He's said letters had been sent out earlier this month to dozens of countries with tariff rates. 'We'll have a straight, simple tariff of anywhere between 15 percent and 50 percent," Trump said this week. "We have 50 [percent] because we haven't been getting along with those countries too well." Economic experts have warned that consumers could pay the price for the new levies. "Now that the Trump administration is concluding deals that would see the tariff rate facing most trading partners settling at between 15% and 20%, with even higher rates levied on Chinese imports, we suspect retailers will be forced to finally raise the prices paid by consumers,' Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist with Capital Economics, said in a research note, CBS News reported. Some companies have preemptively taken action. Trump has threatened a 50 percent tariff on Brazil. The steep levy threats against the country have prompted a New Jersey-based orange juice manufacturer to sue the Trump administration, arguing that the 50 percent tariff could result in a $70 million hit to its business. Sign in to access your portfolio

America Should Travel Fast
America Should Travel Fast

Wall Street Journal

time18 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

America Should Travel Fast

Regarding Allysia Finley's 'California's Bullet Train Is a Model of Progressive Governance' (Life Science, July 21): Every highway and airport in America is subsidized—by billions more than we've ever given to high-speed rail. The $6 billion private line in Florida isn't high-speed, which costs more. But the benefit of true high-speed rail is that more people ride it because it's more convenient than driving or flying. Dozens of other countries, even those with far fewer resources than America, such as Morocco, build it because it's a better return on investment. I conducted a financial analysis of the California high-speed rail with some Harvard Business School colleagues more than a decade ago, and we came to two conclusions: It will cost more than they say, and it will still cost less than expanding highways or airports. The rail project should be reformed, not tanked.

Readers Respond to Gavin Newsom on Energy
Readers Respond to Gavin Newsom on Energy

Wall Street Journal

time18 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Readers Respond to Gavin Newsom on Energy

Regarding Gov. Gavin Newsom's 'Clean Energy Powers California's Economic Growth' (op-ed, July 24): Mr. Newsom brags of two-thirds of California energy being 'cheap, abundant, clean power.' Meanwhile, in the real world, a kilowatt hour of California electricity is among the highest in the country at around 32 cents—more than double the median state's 15 cents. This results in excess energy costs to consumers and businesses in California of billions of dollars a year. The extra dollar per gallon for gasoline adds insult to injury. If a President Newsom had his druthers, annual U.S. energy costs would be nearly $1 trillion higher if California policies were applied nationally.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store