American science to soon face its largest brain drain in history

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Brain Drain and Talent Concentration

  • Some argue the loss of US-based scientists will be “good for the world” by reducing hyper‑concentration of talent and spreading capability globally.
  • Others counter that dense clusters of diverse, open‑minded people, capital, and institutions (e.g., Silicon Valley) are exactly what make major breakthroughs possible; dispersion without ecosystem support is seen as harmful.
  • Economies of scale in research are emphasized: more researchers in one place makes science more efficient, but also risks economic destruction and migration in regions that lose talent.

Role of US Federal Science Agencies

  • Strong pushback against downplaying agencies like NOAA, NASA, NSF, CDC, EPA, FDA, NIH, DOE, and DOD: commenters call them the engines and funders of a large share of cutting‑edge and foundational science.
  • “Unsexy” but crucial activities—long‑term data collection, climate and weather models, animal models, instrumentation, training grad students—are highlighted as especially at risk.
  • Some view these bodies as bloated bureaucracies; others stress that private labs mostly pursue short‑term, marketable engineering, not deep, long‑horizon science.

Universities, Tuition, and Research Funding

  • Multiple researchers report that tuition generally does not fund STEM research; grants (NSF, NIH, DARPA, etc.) pay for labs, students, and often salaries, with universities skimming substantial overhead.
  • Debate over whether students should subsidize research at all; some see double‑taxation and exploitation, others see scholarship as core to a university’s mission.
  • Rising tuition and administrative bloat are criticized, with skepticism that high prices are justified by actual educational or research value.

International Responses and Competition

  • Several examples of other countries actively recruiting US‑based scientists (Norway, France, Australia, Canada; mentions of EU, China, Japan increasing support).
  • Some note these are small in absolute terms relative to US cuts, but still meaningful as “safe haven” signals.
  • View that competitors don’t need to massively increase funding if the US simultaneously slashes its own; standing still can make them relatively more attractive.

Mobility and Who Actually Leaves

  • Doubts that many US‑born scientists with families will move, but strong concern that foreign‑born researchers—who already relocated once—will leave or not come in the first place.
  • For some, the choice is framed as “do science abroad or stop being a scientist” if US government funding collapses.
  • Language and cultural barriers (e.g., Japan, China vs. Europe) are acknowledged but seen as surmountable if opportunities vanish in the US.

Politics, Ideology, and Self‑Sabotage

  • Several comments tie funding cuts and interference with data collection to authoritarian impulses: if problems aren’t measured, they can be denied.
  • Broader themes: xenophobia, white supremacy, and party‑loyalty politics are described as driving self‑destructive policy that sacrifices long‑term national strength for short‑term ideological gain.
  • Some see this as a continuation and amplification of pre‑existing trends; others describe the current administration as a qualitative break (“truck full of shit,” not just a “straw”).

Historical Analogies and Skepticism

  • Debate over the article’s comparison with Nazi Germany’s brain drain:
    • One side emphasizes how emigrating Jewish and other scientists, later joined by ex‑Nazi scientists, helped power US postwar dominance.
    • Others argue the analogy is overstated and that America’s post‑WWII rise owed more to being the only major industrial power left unbombed.
  • There is general agreement that undermining domestic science is strategically catastrophic, but disagreement on how closely current events mirror the 1930s–40s.